Forum menu
I hope the cards are as solid as ours then
He will just need to fly out to Afghanistan when someone produces a choice of condiments for it.
At this point, I’d like to ask, once again, why having a single national ID would be so bad?
As above, it would be ok if we lived somewhere like Sweden with much higher levels of trust between the public and government and an accepted level of 'intrusion' by the state if it serves society, but we don't.
It's is a somewhat "thin end of the wedge"argument fo'sure, but have we done the Chinese and their Social Credit Scheme
Now, I don't think that any western govt is going to introduce anything so draconian. By the same token in these days of complete domination by technology, I also can't imagine that once introduced and accepted any scheme which allows govt to ID it's citizens isn't going to be expanded into an App...Big data any-one? Just look at how successful FB is, most civil servants would give their eye-teeth for that sort of data set...I know Dom Cummings was keen.
willard
Full MemberAt this point, I’d like to ask, once again, why having a single national ID would be so bad?
Personally I don't think it is, not in isolation. But what comes with it can be. Costs can be pushed onto people who can barely afford it and gain least from it (and in this government, inevitably would be). It can be used as a tool of harrassment (and in this country, inevitably would be). And so on.
Arguably the biggest argument for not having one, is that we don't have one. The costs of setting it up are considerable, and we're a country in financial trouble. (and also, some of those troubles and politics have diminished the benefits of an ID card- less freedom of travel, less reason to travel, less desirable work location, less services to access with it). I wouldn't necessarily argue for dismantling it if we had it, but that's a different argument to not creating it when you don't.
At this point, I’d like to ask, once again, why having a single national ID would be so bad?
To add to the above
- I doubt it would replace any of the systems we already need ID to access - Tax (why do we have NI number AND a Unique Tax Reference?), driving license, NHS number etc. If it doesn't, what does it bring apart from duplication?
- I suspect big business data will be involved, tracking us, understanding us, make business based decisions, not access to services as a citizen. The Facebook dream ticket of connecting your online content, with spending, with tax payments and health information...
The most fundamental thing that's perhaps not really being mentioned is that voting is a right, any bill that carry the potential to impede some citizen's ability to exercise that right should come with indisputable proof that the crime it seeks to prevent are happening and are causing damage to our democracy... "Because Facebook" isn't really an iron clad case in my book.
It's an interesting grift isn't it, a placebo for an issue imagined up by Gammony, Facebook dwelling, conspiracists.
A policy invented solely because it's going to appeal to the new Tory voting demographic.
But it also comes with a bonus, the requirement for ID at a polling station acts as a de-facto voter suppression measure that is conveniently weighted towards demographic groups who typically don't vote Tory...
Not to start coming over all Trumpish but the 'best' way to commit electoral fraud currently (and still if this bill passes) will be through postal votes: False registration, Theft and completion by someone with access to a voters home, interception in the post, all viable methods, no need to visit a polling station.
If people are genuinely worried about voter fraud and want to see the government implement measures to prevent it, the first port of call should be getting rid of postal voting. Which of course is taken up disproportionately by older voters more prone to voting Tory...
This will be a bill that really tests the strength of Labour in opposition (I know there are other parties too). not just in commons debate, but in terms of their ability to push it up the news agenda, and keep it there creating enough of a froth amongst the new Tory voters. If this passes it will be at least in part because the opposition have failed to get the message across to the public that it amounts to Tories seeking to separate people from their right to vote.
At this point, I’d like to ask, once again, why having a single national ID would be so bad?
It wouldn't, but that's not actually the question posed in this thread is it.
Implementing a National ID card is a bit of a logical leap, a solution to the problems created when legitimate voters wishing to attend a polling station without photo ID are refused their right to vote.
An ID card in this context would be solution to a problem, created by a solution to a non-existent problem.
I'm sure Gove has a chum who could run off 70 million ID cards for a nominal fee...
The questions that need to keep being thrown back at Government are simple:
Do the government (with their current majority) have evidence that recent national votes and elections have been subject to significant (in person) voter fraud?
Can the government guarantee that no legitimate voter's ability to vote will be impeded by these measures?
What measures are the government planning to bring into force to address the far more prevalent problems of fake news, disinformation and voter manipulation?
At this point, I’d like to ask, once again, why having a single national ID would be so bad?
At this point I'd like to say again this isn't about introducing a national ID card.
This is about stopping people voting because they haven't needed to pay to get one of the current photo ID cards - passports or driving licenses - thus preventing millions from exercising their democratic right to vote.
And we all wonder what Cumming's has been up to the last few months.
It would be quite amusing if this wasn’t such another serious power grab.
FTFY.
At this point, I’d like to ask, once again, why having a single national ID would be so bad?
a) It's not necessary. This is GDPR 101, you have to have a legitimate need to process someone's data. A national ID card fails this test.
b) Who's paying for it? Who's going to be printing ~55 million secure ID cards? A driving licence replacement is twenty quid and that is using long-established infrastructure. Even ignoring costs for new ID Card infrastructure that's over a billion before you've started.
c) Who would have access to your details? With reference to b), that's something a lot of people would pay good money for.
But of course, they wouldn't sell your data, would they. Have we forgotten the Investigatory Powers Bill ("Snooper's Charter") already? That grants access to any UK citizen's Internet activity to deep breath:
Police forces maintained under section 2 of the Police Act 1996
Metropolitan police force
City of London police force
Police Service of Scotland
Police Service of Northern Ireland
British Transport Police
Ministry of Defence Police
Royal Navy Police
Royal Military Police
Royal Air Force Police
Security Service
Secret Intelligence Service
GCHQ
Ministry of Defence
Department of Health
Home Office
Ministry of Justice
National Crime Agency
HM Revenue & Customs
Department for Transport
Department for Work and Pensions
An ambulance trust in England
NHS National Services Scotland
Competition and Markets Authority
Criminal Cases Review Commission
Department for Communities in Northern Ireland
Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland
Department of Justice in Northern Ireland
Financial Conduct Authority
Fire and rescue authorities under the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004
Food Standards Agency
Food Standards Scotland
Gambling Commission
Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority
Health and Safety Executive
Independent Police Complaints Commissioner
Information Commissioner
NHS Business Services Authority
Northern Ireland Ambulance Service Health and Social Care Trust
Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service Board
Northern Ireland Health and Social Care Regional Business Services Organisation
Office of Communications
Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland
Police Investigations and Review Commissioner
Scottish Ambulance Service Board
Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission
Serious Fraud Office
Welsh Ambulance Services National Health Service Trust
I can't believe this isn't a more popular thread. Or, like pretty much every other story coming out of the government, is it yesterdays chip wrapper?
Has Starmer done any opposing yet? I haven't seen anything in the news that I look at. Maybe he is waiting to score points at the dispatch box so he can look clever in the Westminster bubble.
He’s been warning about it as leader for a while:
https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1288469983857696769?s=20
Retweeted this the other day:
https://twitter.com/CatSmithMP/status/1392218122548125707?s=20
Ruth Davidson was fairly unambiguous in her appraisal of Johnsons latest assault on democracy
https://twitter.com/itvpeston/status/1392588377971740674?s=20
She put that quite succinctly and accurately, didn’t she.
She perfectly vocalised what most of us were thinking
If she'd been so straightforward and critical of the party when she was actually elected to Holyrood they'd have stood a serious chance of hurting the nats and blocking some of the policies she really hates!
Why does voting ID mean voter suppression rather than just reducing voter fraud? Why is it so black and white? Why are old, young, poor, and disabled people not able to obtain voter ID? Surely the simple answer is two-fold, introduce the need for ID to increase voting security and improve access to the forms of ID necessary. In relation to two of the groups highlighted, I thought disabled people more likely than others to hold ID like the DID card, and aren't elderly people more likely to have some form of ID live a travel pass?
There is no (or so little to be irrelevant) in person voter fraud to "reduce".
Why does voting ID mean voter suppression rather than just reducing voter fraud?
Because there isn't any voter fraud. well, not strictly true, but you may as well have a bill called "This bill is all about Barry, he knows why. Voting Act 2021"
Isn't it always the case that these so-called libertarians quickly morph into authoritarians once in power? David Davis being probably the most glaring example alongside Boris.
I expect all the very vocal libertarians in the Tory ranks will dutifully vote it through when the time arrives.
If the EU or the labour party were to propose something like this they'd literally be soiling their petticoats with booming, righteous indignation and talking about Police States
Why does voting ID mean voter suppression rather than just reducing voter fraud?
because the number of people who can't vote today because they don't have an ID source. is 3.5million. you will stop Way way way way way way way way way (you get the idea) more people voting than you will stop fraudulent votes. even if they got everyone ID for free more people would forget the bloody thng and be refused than will be fraudlent voting.
And thats just the people who don't have Id, my other half didn't have any
Does anyone know how many of the 3.5 million are actually on the electoral roll? It's not the main point but could point to what is a group essentially detached from the democratic system
I'm with Ruth on this issue. It's arguably a dead cat to distract when they need to divert attention from something
D’you know, I’m not exactly right wing but Ruth is the kind of Tory one warms to. Maybe not enough to vote for but well done.
Another question on this, if there is an ID to vote that you would not otherwise need (and we’ve seen non-driving, no foreign trips examples on the thread) presumably it would have to be made available for free as to do otherwise would be requiring people to pay to vote - thoughts?
Yeah fair play to Ruth Davidson, presumably she found her spine down the back of the sofa, just in time to be elevated to the House of Lords.
Does anyone know how many of the 3.5 million are actually on the electoral roll? It’s not the main point but could point to what is a group essentially detached from the democratic system
The US election last year was won by getting those normally detached from the democratic system, to actually vote (not the myth of flipping swing voters that the centrists like to peddle). That is why republican states are enacting voter suppression laws to put them back in the box.
The tories have seen this and worry about the same happening here, although when the opposition leaders reaction is a retweet, I don't think they should be overly worried about him gaining such momentum.
Has Starmer done any opposing yet?
Who knows when the meeja hasn't given any airtime to anyone other than Garage and the boys in blue for the last five years.
Why does voting ID mean voter suppression rather than just reducing voter fraud?
Because a lot of people don't have photo ID so would no longer be able to vote, and extant voter fraud is as close to zero as to be statistically irrelevant so there's no need for it.
I'd suggest you read the rest of this thread. We've answered these questions and your others several times over now.
Why does voting ID mean voter suppression rather than just reducing voter fraud? Why is it so black and white? Why are old, young, poor, and disabled people not able to obtain voter ID? Surely the simple answer is two-fold, introduce the need for ID to increase voting security and improve access to the forms of ID necessary. In relation to two of the groups highlighted, I thought disabled people more likely than others to hold ID like the DID card, and aren’t elderly people more likely to have some form of ID live a travel pass?
Because it starts with the false premise that UK elections are insecure and prone to in-person fraud, when they're demonstrably not.
It then proposes pretty much the weakest possible bolt on "security measure" which also happens to be the measure which, as it happens, would impede more non-tory voters.
This is a rare instance where the status-quo already delivers free and fair elections, and the proposed "Solution" would actually erode that.
If you want ID cards, put forward a bill proposing and justifying ID cards, don't engineer a situation where one possible solution is the provision of free National ID cards.
Basically why are the Tories trying to "fix" a spurious issue with electoral security using ID cards that nobody is asked for either?
Did they trial something with the local elections? my Wife and I went to vote together and we both got asked for ID, I had some one my but my wife didn't, we were both still allowed to cast our votes.
Did they trial something with the local elections?
There have been trials in a couple of areas of different approaches. Not sure whether there were any for this local election but its possible the trial areas kept the same approach going.
Next will be reducing the number of Polling Stations, it'll be sold as an 'efficiency drive' and obviously tightening up who can vote by post...
This is a huge deal and should be front page news.
Why does voting ID mean voter suppression rather than just reducing voter fraud?
Because the people affected would be younger, poorer and less-white (potential) voters.
These people are less likely to vote Conservative, hence the policy.
There is no evidence of voter fraud in the UK. This is an invented scare issue that's being used to tip the scales.
Hope that helps.
Stop answering the repeated bad faith question, just call them an idiot and suggest they read the comprehensive answers from the first time it was asked.
They are using a technique called firehosing, answering in good faith just legitimises the question. Call them out for using a propaganda technique or don't respond at all.
Because the people affected would be younger, poorer and less-white (potential) voters.
To be fair, I'd still be ranting if it somehow affected older, richer, white Tory voters as well.
Voter suppression is voter suppression.
we both got asked for ID
you don't need either ID or your polling card to vote. I don't think there are any ongoing pilots - they happened in 2018 and 2019.
Just because people do not currently have a form of ID does not mean they cannot get it if it is required. Simply spend the 4 years prior to an election improving the access to photo ID and encouraging people to acquire a photo ID. It seems obvious that it improves the security of an election regardless of whether that system has been proven to be broken. Fraud often goes undetected. Voter identification is not an alien concept to many established democracies, Germany, France, Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, all require a form of identification.
I think you've missed the point we've been making.
Huge cost to resolve a non issue. Why I it a priority with all the other shit we have going on?
that system has been proven to be broken
Go ahead then... how is it proven to be broken, in a way that voter ID can solve? Where is that proof?
And while this goes on, we still have a voting system where in one house of parliament a majority of seats can be won on a minority vote, and in the other house people can be appointed having been rejected by their voters and then made a minister in the government. Literally voted out at an election, only to be then gifted a seat in parliament and take up a role in the executive.
It seems obvious that it improves the security of an election regardless of whether that system has been proven to be broken
Do you think every UK election thus far, has been insecure? Is increased security more valuable than participation?
Voter identification is not an alien concept to many established democracies, Germany, France, Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, all require a form of identification.
Sure, but those systems rely on decades of citizen ID being normalised, and have been largely in place as the franchise in those countries has expanded over time. So the two have gone hand in hand. There's no evidence to suggest that UK elections are less secure than those held in these other countries.
It seems obvious that it improves the security of an election regardless of whether that system has been proven to be broken.
For any security measure you have to weigh up effectiveness vs usability and then also account for the risk factor.
If you block 1 case by using photo id but prevent 1000 people from voting it is a rather poor return on investment.
Out of the voting options postal votes is far more vulnerable to misuse. Oddly enough though the tories dont seem interested in that. Why is that do you think?
Why are they going for the option which most impacts people who dont vote for them regardless of the low risk vs the more risky variant which people who vote for them use?
Out of the voting options postal votes is far more vulnerable to misuse. Oddly enough though the tories dont seem interested in that. Why is that do you think?
Why are they going for the option which most impacts people who dont vote for them regardless of the low risk vs the more risky variant which people who vote for them use?
Postal voting issues are significantly higher than in person voting issues, these allegedly are most likely in communities that tend to vote labour, don't know why a conservative government isn't tackling that issue
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-47535867
I agree with needing ID. There is no downside and it prompts people to get a valid photo ID that they might need for other things. There's plenty of time to get some form of photo ID.
We don't complain about showing ID to collect things from stores, to drive, to travel abroad etc.
what if a person cannot afford a photo ID? what if they don't drive, go abroad (have a driving license or passport?) should those people just be prevented from voting then?
There is no downside
Read the thread.
£15 for a citizen card delivered within 21 days. Last for 3 years too.