Labour Leader: Keir Starmer IV

[notaclue]

Seriously this is a fundamental assault on democracy.

Either that or else we find out that a major Tory donor recently set up a new firm to produce photo ID cards and has been a bit short of business lately.

 

[Seeker_UK]

If you read through this thread, and elsewhere on Pink Fish, it is clear, I think, that many people believe that the political system in the UK is not delivering a fairer society because of systematic faults. I think they may be right. I also think that there are three choices

1. Flog a dead horse, whine on social media, die.
2. Bury head in sand, leave the UK -- but go where?
3. Badiou.

1. If pfm was in anyway representative of the UK population, you'd have a point.
2. You missed the most likely option which is "There are more important things to me and, as it doesn't adversely affect my life nor my ability to do the things I want to do, it works for me."

 

[zarniwoop]

This is an interesting chart. It shows how often people in each age cohort have been on the winning side in British elections and referendums. E.g. if you were born in 1961, you were in the 35-44 age bracket for the 1997 election and since that cohort vote for LAB (by 20 points) and the election result was also LAB (by 13 points) the chart shows you as winning that election. So, broadly, baby boomers have only ever known electoral joy but for younger people it's been miserable.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/n9xmvl/how_often_have_age_cohorts_been_on_the/

I must be younger than I thought

 

[doctorf]

Seriously this is a fundamental assault on democracy. How far does the UK have to drift to the far-right before people start to fight?

Seriously, it isn’t.
It’s plain common sense.
As for drifting to the far right. That is complete bollocks.

 

[SteveS1]

Seriously, it isn’t.
It’s plain common sense.
As for drifting to the far right. That is complete bollocks.

No it's not actually, what you mean is you don't mind. That's a different matter.

 

[Seanm]

1. If pfm was in anyway representative of the UK population, you'd have a point.
2. You missed the most likely option which is "There are more important things to me and, as it doesn't adversely affect my life nor my ability to do the things I want to do, it works for me."

Around 40% of the lowest income quartile don’t vote. It’s not because they feel the political system is working for them, I don’t think.

 

[Joe Hutch]

Doing some family history research for Mrs H, we discovered that one of her forebears was an important figure in trade union/radical politics. He campaigned to get polling hours extended so that the newly-enfranchised working class could vote in practice, rather than just in theory.

Making it harder for people to vote is a retrograde step, especially when there's no evidence that any change is needed.

 

[ks.234]

Seriously, it isn’t.
It’s plain common sense.
As for drifting to the far right. That is complete bollocks.

What is the problem that ID cards will solve?

 

[Seeker_UK]

Around 40% of the lowest income quartile don’t vote. It’s not because they feel the political system is working for them, I don’t think.

Two thirds of the UK electorate turned out to vote last time so by the same logic, they think it's working for them.

 

[Seanm]

Two thirds of the UK electorate turned out to vote last time so by the same logic, they think it's working for them.

I guess that's OK then. System seems to be working, right?

 

[doctorf]

What is the problem that ID cards will solve?

It will ensure that a person who is entitled to vote can actually vote.
Nobody dares to admit how much electoral fraud is suspected. I suspect it is a lot more than numbers of prosecutions would suggest. IMHO, it’s a small price to pay to ensure electoral fraud is eradicated.

 

[Seanm]

Seriously, it isn’t.
It’s plain common sense.
As for drifting to the far right. That is complete bollocks.

It is of course plain common sense. Every little helps.

 

[doctorf]

There are more photo ID cards than driving licences. Metro cards are widely held, as are passports. There are a number of other photo IDs relating to work, armed forces etc.
It may be a fundamental right to vote, but it is also the role of the state to ensure that only those entitled to vote do so.

 

[Seanm]

It will ensure that a person who is entitled to vote can actually vote.
Nobody dares to admit how much electoral fraud is suspected. I suspect it is a lot more than numbers of prosecutions would suggest. IMHO, it’s a small price to pay to ensure electoral fraud is eradicated.

The disenfranchisement of millions of voters seems like quite a big price to pay: it would be even if there were a problem with people casting fraudulent votes, which there isn't.

That's not to say that electoral fraud isn't a problem. Massive, illegal overspending by the Conservatives on electoral campaigns is a problem:

Pro-Tory campaigns spent over £700,000 without declaring a single donation

You might have seen some of the ads towards which the money went yourself: they're the kind of dark ads aimed at older, socially conservative voters, alleging that voter fraud is rife in certain communities - that kind of thing.

What price would you say is appropriate to ensure that that kind of electoral fraud is eradicated? Oddly it didn't come up in the Queen's Speech.

 

[Woodface]

There are very many older folk who have never had photo ID, it's an absurd requirement to solve a non-issue.

These old folk would only vote Tory anyway. People seem to be really good at voting in the opposite way to which I would prefer so I don’t really see the problem.

 

[Seanm]

Thought this was interesting in relation to Matthew's earlier post:

There was some discussion earlier, here and elsewhere, on low income voters voting for the Tories, meaning Labour has lost the working class etc. Important to take into account age when talking about class at the moment.

 

[SteveS1]

These old folk would only vote Tory anyway. People seem to be really good at voting in the opposite way to which I would prefer so I don’t really see the problem.

Really, this is just lazy. Which older people are likely to be non-drivers or not hold passports? The answer isn't Tories is it. Were that the case, this wouldn't even be on the agenda.

 

[Tony L]

There are very many older folk who have never had photo ID, it's an absurd requirement to solve a non-issue.

Again, just for clarity: if I don’t renew my passport, which I barely if ever use as I never go on holiday, then I may well lose my right to vote if the Tories continue down this obviously Trumpian/Republican path. I don’t have a driving license and being self-employed I obviously don’t need any work photo-IDs. I work from home so I need no railcard or whatever. I do have a volunteer ID from the museum where I bored people with unparalleled levels of historic computer nerdery once a week, but that is all I have, and it likely wouldn’t count. There will be hundreds of thousands, even millions in this exact same position.

Is being able to vote in a FPTP seat with a 100% certain outcome worth £80 to me for a passport I may never use (I never used the last ten year one I bought which is now about to expire)? No, I don’t think it is, so the Tory far-right can successfully disenfranchise people. Even middle class working/business-owning folk like me.

 

[ff1d1l]

It will ensure that a person who is entitled to vote can actually vote.
Nobody dares to admit how much electoral fraud is suspected. I suspect it is a lot more than numbers of prosecutions would suggest. IMHO, it’s a small price to pay to ensure electoral fraud is eradicated.

You think the last GE was stolen?

 

[matthewr]

It may be a fundamental right to vote, but it is also the role of the state to ensure that only those entitled to vote do so.

Which, as you well know, they already do to an efficacy of 99.999%. So what else could it be about this scheme that makes it attractive to Conservative politicians?