You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
You could circumvent the need for photo ID by applying for a postal vote. Then you don't even need to go to the polling station.
As I need to prove my identity to fly, to get free bus travel, to claim benefits, to open a bank account, I don't see an issue with voter ID.
There may not be much voter fraud but we don't look for it
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/apr/05/politics.localgovernment
Voter ID isn't just about "proving your identity", in the same way as for opening a bank account or claiming benefits. As for flying... you'd be amazed how many people can't afford a passport in the UK.
You’d have to give Doris a name and address which is on that specific list, you’d need to know the specific local polling station assigned to the address in question.
And the more you do it the more chance there is of you being rumbled. I reckon I know 80% of the voters in my Polling Station. Not a fool proof system but still a good chance I will catch you out.
In summary, you would have to work very hard and be very lucky to fiddle a tiny number of votes.
On a similar line to what someone else said... issue passports free to everyone, automatically, but don't insist on them being carried while in the UK... and then you can require them to be being presented when voting. Don't demand voter ID before issuing everyone with appropriate, cost free, hassle free, delay free, bureaucracy free ID, otherwise it is a barrier to voting.
There may not be much voter fraud but we don’t look for it
Your example is rather telling.
Firstly its postal voting. So photo id wouldnt help.
Secondly looking at it it was done on a large enough scale to count which also meant a large enough scale to be noticed. To significantly swing things chances are you will start using people who are intending to vote votes.
Many of my customers in the postoffice don't have photo ID - we have to refuse services for many things. Its become more and more of a requirement in society. But I don't think it's necessarily a good thing. Especially for voting where there are so many other ways of voter verification.
I've had a photo ID since i moved to Sweden. It's not a requirement but it makes life a lot easier. You can get a driving licence (about 40 quid i think) a passport (70 quid) or if you don't want or need either of those, or aren't eligible, you can get an ID card, which last i looked was about 12-15 quid.
The only think that's compulsory is the personnummer that's printed on the card. That ties everything together, multiple databases, tax status, employment, medical, driving licence, home ownership, address...
Having done a days stint at a polling station, I wouldn't think it's that hard to cast your vote, so long as you know the name and address of someone who isn't voting, go home change of clothes and cast their vote for them of your choice.
I'm good at recognising faces but couldn't garantee that in the course of a day and 2000 people that I would spot someone coming in twice.
However this is a ploy to make it harder to vote, we need more people to engage and this is another step to making it harder to engage surely it could be done digitally by now.
Election official are concerned and believe that this may lead to judicial challenges over the result of elections
surely it could be done digitally by now
Indeed.
The thing with all this is that they want to mandate ID without putting the systems in place first. This is to stop certain people voting. They are trying to scam up coming elections. If ID really is needed to ensure fair elections, then sort the systems that would give everyone proof of ID first, before insisting on ID being presented. And no, those private "Citizens Cards" aren't suitable at all. No more suitable than a CostCo card.
surely it could be done digitally by now
and this runs an assumption you can afford a computer/mobile etc. or the ability to go to a secure place like a library to use theirs, so we're back to the hit to poorer people.
Worked on voting systems and backend coding for elections for many years in a previous life. Its not broken. Its not 100% secure, as like people say, there is potential to vote if you know name/address but its remerkably efficient for all people at the moment.
I've already got a passport and driving licence with photos, are they not photo I'd?
I’ve had a photo ID since i moved to Sweden. It’s not a requirement but it makes life a lot easier. You can get a driving licence (about 40 quid i think) a passport (70 quid) or if you don’t want or need either of those, or aren’t eligible, you can get an ID card, which last i looked was about 12-15 quid.
The only think that’s compulsory is the personnummer that’s printed on the card. That ties everything together, multiple databases, tax status, employment, medical, driving licence, home ownership, address…
Thats exactly what I want to happen.
Still don't really think it needs presenting to allow you to vote though.
Twodogs
Full MemberBut the fact is other countries have them (see Spain, above) and no-one is suggesting Spain is a police state.
True. But then here it's being mooted specifically as a way to disenfranchise voters. Having a national card is one thing, wanting to introduce it for shitty reasons is another. Motivation is very important here.
And this is a government that's constantly trying to criminalise protest and dissent, making strikes harder, etc etc. So it's appropriate to see it in the same light.
I’ve already got a passport and driving licence with photos, are they not photo I’d?
Yes. You'll be able to vote with them.
Those who don't have either kr anything similar, and there are hundreds of thousands, will not be able to engage on our "democratic" process.
Just to counter the raving lefties as started by TJ. Might I suggest it is aimed at hindering the most important section of society. The older ones who know what the hell is going on, not the youngester who have all the ideas but no sodding clue.
Raving leftie? I have it on good authority ( Ernie) that I am " some sort of pale pink wishy washy liberal"*
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
* I'm actually a dark green but hey ho 🙂
"and this runs an assumption you can afford a computer/mobile etc. or the ability to go to a secure place like a library to use theirs, so we’re back to the hit to poorer people."
Twaddle spouted for a polical , and there fore disgusting and immoral, reason. I see dozens of familesi daily claiming poverty. Every single one of them has a fancy phone and an arm full of tats. Thats up to you and no reflection on you as a person but if you can afford that you are not poverty stricken.
The older ones who know what the hell is going on, not the youngester who have all the ideas but no sodding clue.
Age doesnt necessarily bring wisdom. For example a cursory investigation of this idea would show the obvious problem that old people vote tory. So are you arguing the tories are deliberately trying to disenfranchise those geniuses who vote for them?
Needless to say the tories arent that stupid hence why the built in privileges for oaps in terms of using their travel cards etc so they can keep the votes rolling in.
True. But then here it’s being mooted specifically as a way to disenfranchise voters. Having a national card is one thing, wanting to introduce it for shitty reasons is another. Motivation is very important here.
Absolutely agree. My original question was really to understand other views on ID cards in general assuming a theoretical problem free, free to everyone solution. Personally, I have no problem with the idea of them...but the devil is in the detail
I see dozens of familesi daily claiming poverty. Every single one of them has a fancy phone and an arm full of tats. Thats up to you and no reflection on you as a person but if you can afford that you are not poverty stricken.
Oh dear. Kicked off the Daily Mail forums, were you?
Very angry. Why?
Photo ID?
When I was Mr Mackay (prison officer) I worked on visits often. I'd say the vast majority of prison visitors had some form of photo ID.
I'm not being prison visitor-ist here!
No idea what that has to do with anything mind.
Insane? The system they have designed is completely, clinically sane. Your every move tracked, traced. It is beautifully efficient. All for your own safety, comrade. Because governments do, and always have cared about keeping you safe.
Every single one of them has a fancy phone and an arm full of tats. Thats up to you and no reflection on you as a person but if you can afford that you are not poverty stricken.
You got a spec list of those phones? Cos they all look pretty much the same, and vary wildly in cost. As for the tats, maybe the had a windfall a number of years ago?
Judging peoples financial situation today by something they may have bought years ago is ridiculous.
... the most important section of society. The older ones who know what the hell is going on, not the youngester who have all the ideas but no sodding clue.
Alternatively, the senile old goats who will be dead in a couple of years, or the youngsters will have to deal with the fallout from their shit for the next 70.
I see dozens of familesi daily claiming poverty.
Do you? Do you work in a benefits office?
Every single one of them
Every single one of them? Do they? Are you sure?
has a fancy phone
Why are you going around checking the specs on people's phones? You can get a fancy-looking phone from CeX et all for a few quid. Are you looking through the windows to see if they have a telly as well?
and an arm full of tats.
Maybe they're your important members of society that got them done 40 years ago when they were better off, then fell on harder times?
Can you really not see what you're saying here, are you that blinkered? You're arguing that if people don't have much money then they shouldn't be allowed the occasional nice thing. Maybe that "fancy phone" is the one thing of value that they own. Maybe it was a hand-me-down gift. You just don't know, you have no way of knowing what anyone's circumstances are.
Sneering at those worse off than yourself is not an admirable quality. Nor a pleasant one.
Also phones are pretty much essential to claim benefits
Also phones are pretty much essential to claim benefits
Is that why he's complaining about them?
Seems like a very clear Tory ploy to make it harder to vote.
As has been said this will likely affect non-Tory voters to a greater extent.
National ID card? Unnecessary. Unwanted. Unaffordable. It would be as pointless an exercise now or in the future as it was with Blair.
Just to counter the raving lefties as started by TJ. Might I suggest it is aimed at hindering the most important section of society. The older ones who know what the hell is going on, not the youngester who have all the ideas but no sodding clue.
Top satire!
As has been said this will likely affect non-Tory voters to a greater extent.
Assuming it was free why would it?
Shouldn't voting be made more difficult anyway .. surely people shouldn't be allowed to vote unless they actually have some understanding what they are voting for?
Also phones are pretty much essential to claim benefits
Is that why he’s complaining about them?
Amazes me that no-one seems to be complaining about the need to own intrusive ID/device like a phone vs a photocard for voting?
Shouldn’t voting be made more difficult anyway .. surely people shouldn’t be allowed to vote unless they actually have some understanding what they are voting for?
So you're advocating a test rather than ownership of an object, ok - would this be a theory, practical or both test?
Sneering at those worse off than yourself is not an admirable quality. Nor a pleasant one.
Eloquently put @Cougar (the whole post not just the quotation).
Shouldn’t voting be made more difficult anyway .. surely people shouldn’t be allowed to vote unless they actually have some understanding what they are voting for?
Yep, let's roll it back to prominent upstanding members of society - just titled land owning men like the good old days. Can't have poor people, the yoof and ladies with heads full of fluffy kittens deciding such weighty matters.
So you’re advocating a test rather than ownership of an object, ok – would this be a theory, practical or both test?
I honestly don't know but the vast majority of voters seem to struggle with even knowing what the manifesto they are theoretically voting for is AND what it is they are voting against.
I don't mean in any great detail, I mean beyond red top headlines and just putting a cross next to a name for a rosette colour.
It must be a vanishing small number of voters that have read ALL party manifesto's... but ignoring that level of detail it seems like a tiny percentage of swing voters and a large number of people voting on misinformation
Maybe an independent organisation (like OBR) should pass a 1/2 page summary of facts and misleading "factiods" for each party manifesto and they get tested on those?
blokeuptheroad
Yep, let’s roll it back to prominent upstanding members of society – just titled land owning men like the good old days.
Pretty sure they all mostly vote already... and aren't changing
Can’t have poor people, the yoof and ladies with heads full of fluffy kittens deciding such weighty matters.
Which matters?
Do you think when the Tory party sends a minibus to the retirement homes to ferry the retirees to the polling station they have any clue what is in the manifesto or what it means?
"I had to wait 6 hours at the hospital and Boris is building 50 new ones and employing loads of new nurses"
Steve, you're really the last person who should be judging anyone for a lack of comprehension of factual matters.
Maybe an independent organisation (like OBR) should pass a 1/2 page summary of facts and misleading “factiods” for each party manifesto and they get tested on those?
Every voter in the country being tested, and having their test scored before voting? The scale of the costs and bureaucracy would be enormous! That's after you surmount the bunfights and arguments between the parties over the nature/fairness of the questions. Once the questions were released, how would you stop the the answers being shared? Unless you envisage it being done in the polling station - poll clerks being invigilator and examiner too?
The current system isn't perfect, but it's the fairest - everyone gets a vote, without barriers. It comes back to the Churchill quote:
'Democracy is the worst form of government, except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time'.
The moment you start limiting who can vote, based on some arbitrary 'test' (selection process), it isn't democracy anymore.
The moment you start limiting who can vote, based on some arbitrary ‘test’ (selection process), it isn’t democracy anymore.
Having the list of candidates and then a list of one manifesto promise from each party and having to chose the right one for your candidate does have a certain appeal.
Or maybe go back to when the party wasnt mentioned so you would have to know the candidates name (although would need to solve the problem of people matching names which was why they got added).
The moment you start limiting who can vote, based on some arbitrary ‘test’ (selection process), it isn’t democracy anymore.
It's not really 21C democracy when people are voting based on completely incorrect assumptions though.
Its really not far off Romans standing in their Tribes in a field
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_the_Roman_Republic
Do you really think for example Boris should have been allowed to claim he was building however many more hospitals and hiring thousands of nurses that then gets propagated to a blue leaflet stuffed through your door?
It's just one example but many people voted Tory for new hospitals/nurses/police... that were not new.
Don't get me wrong,
just titled land owning men like the good old days
Little or nothing will change their voting ...
but voter manipulation today is very very different to "the good ole days" with social media bubbles
"Screaming Lord Such" had a point back in the 80's? but that point seems far more relevant today....
Every voter in the country being tested, and having their test scored before voting? The scale of the costs and bureaucracy would be enormous! That’s after you surmount the bunfights and arguments between the parties over the nature/fairness of the questions. Once the questions were released, how would you stop the the answers being shared? Unless you envisage it being done in the polling station – poll clerks being invigilator and examiner too?
Its certainly not simple but ??
How many people don't vote because they think it's pointless? (In the current system FPPP it actually is pointless for huge numbers of voters) .. no-one is physically preventing them voting but their vote is pointless .. same for those who see no point in voting really.
Someone mentioned earlier about engaging (with the democratic process)... though saying the voting was (sic) the most important... I don't believe it is, for democracy to have meaning people need to actually engage ... sure we get told that but just because someone puts a cross in a box doesn't mean they actually engaged.
In an attempt to drag the thread back into the real world, it bears repeating that the list of acceptable forms of ID (See Byline Times article) is very restricted. For all those say that young folk all carry ID anyway, please note that none of them are acceptable, other than a driving licence. If you turn up at the polling station with your beer-buying ID, you'll find yourself disenfranchised.
My hope is that this will happen to enough people at the local elections that it will cause a backlash and re-think before the next GE. But it's a small hope...
In an attempt to drag the thread back into the real world, it bears repeating that the list of acceptable forms of ID (See Byline Times article) is very restricted
In a selective manner. Those oap bus passes work because otherwise the tory voters might not be able to vote.
The tories really are learning from their US cousins about voter suppression.
dissonance
Having the list of candidates and then a list of one manifesto promise from each party and having to chose the right one for your candidate does have a certain appeal.
Or maybe go back to when the party wasnt mentioned so you would have to know the candidates name (although would need to solve the problem of people matching names which was why they got added).
This was something in my mind.... the thing that held me back suggesting it is the technology aspect.
Which IMHO is the REAL issue with voter ID
In an attempt to drag the thread back into the real world, it bears repeating that the list of acceptable forms of ID (See Byline Times article) is very restricted.
It needs to be FREE and it needs to be UNIVERSAL
The current system isn’t perfect, but it’s the fairest – everyone gets a vote, without barriers. It comes back to the Churchill quote:
‘Democracy is the worst form of government, except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time’.
The moment you start limiting who can vote, based on some arbitrary ‘test’ (selection process), it isn’t democracy anymore.
Hypothetically I'd quite like to see some form of qualification to vote, but you're bang on the money here - as soon as you go "you can't vote, you're a moron" then you lose democratic fairness.
Is the problem maybe that people are voting for who they think they want rather than what they want? What if a ballot slip was say a dozen binary questions based around primary policies, then the vote is cast for whichever party most closely aligns with their wishes. That way the Tories will get votes from people who answer yes to "do you want fewer foreigners" or "do you want to remove workers' rights" rather from the folk going "well, I like Boris, he's a character isn't he."
It's completely unworkable, of course. Someone would have to compile the list fairly for a start. But it'd mean that everyone got a vote even if they were a complete roaster, and 'the people' get what they actually want rather than what they think they want.
For all those say that young folk all carry ID anyway, please note that none of them are acceptable, other than a driving licence. If you turn up at the polling station with your beer-buying ID, you’ll find yourself disenfranchised.
That's cracked.
Does it work the other way around, could you use the voting ID to buy beer?
t’s completely unworkable, of course. Someone would have to compile the list fairly for a start. But it’d mean that everyone got a vote even if they were a complete roaster, and ‘the people’ get what they actually want rather than what they think they want.
The problem is; do people actually know what they want? I'm not so sure. Beyond seflish interests, I doubt the vast majority actually care much. The dilemma will always be; give people what they want, or what's good for them?
We do not have a real democracy in the UK anyway. Unelected second house with seats reserved for one religion. No proper recall system, no constitution
Its a partial pseudo democracy
The problem is; do people actually know what they want? I’m not so sure
And how do you quantify it?
one party - you pay less tax
another party - more funding for NHS
the two arent compatible (apart from introducing a third variable in there)
even if people voted selfishly (or considered only their peers) there's no way of determining what benefit you receive from lower taxation versus the reduction in service provided; or how much extra you would pay for the NHS you want.
The dilemma will always be; give people what they want, or what’s good for them?
My Dad for a while was the leader of a small town council, him and his opposite number use to meet up and work out what was best for the town & citizens, and then work out how to 'sell' it to their respective Parties to get it voted through. Only needed a majority, so no/little need for 3-line whips and the like.
Cougar
Hypothetically I’d quite like to see some form of qualification to vote, but you’re bang on the money here – as soon as you go “you can’t vote, you’re a moron” then you lose democratic fairness.
Perhaps but "you can vote but its meaningless" (in your constituency) doesn't seem any better?
Is the problem maybe that people are voting for who they think they want rather than what they want?
It's certainly part of it...
I guess another part is single issue policies... “do you want fewer foreigners” ?? Abortion ???
What if a ballot slip was say a dozen binary questions based around primary policies, then the vote is cast for whichever party most closely aligns with their wishes. That way the Tories will get votes from people who answer yes to “do you want fewer foreigners” or “do you want to remove workers’ rights” rather from the folk going “well, I like Boris, he’s a character isn’t he.”
It’s completely unworkable, of course. Someone would have to compile the list fairly for a start. But it’d mean that everyone got a vote even if they were a complete roaster, and ‘the people’ get what they actually want rather than what they think they want.
So wouldn't each party select the list and then have it "fact checked"
i.e. "We are going to build 50 new hospitals"
Fact check ... you can't say that because only 2 are actually new.
I may have missed it but the Tory's didn't say "do you want fewer foreigners” - they were pushing "control of our own borders" .. which many people may have mistaken to mean the same thing.
I don't think JR Moggy and the NRG were or are "anti-immigration" so long as it's cheaper labour than UK or EU labour... so this is almost a second level of the fact check?
Ideally, once these are agreed as "facts" not some wishy washy election drivel governments can then be held to account over them.
Cougar
Does it work the other way around, could you use the voting ID to buy beer?
I don't think it should... not should they allow passports etc. either.
Everyone should get the same ID with a single function... never carried for any other purpose, certainly no expectation of it being produced.
And how do you quantify it?
one party – you pay less tax
another party – more funding for NHSthe two arent compatible (apart from introducing a third variable in there)
even if people voted selfishly (or considered only their peers) there’s no way of determining what benefit you receive from lower taxation versus the reduction in service provided; or how much extra you would pay for the NHS you want.
Sure you can at least that one (on averages and percentiles at least)
Average GP visits / hospital etc. etc. vs cost to go private.
Ultimately it's what private medical insurance companies do everyday just like accounts will tell you the change in net income.
Everyone should get the same ID with a single function… never carried for any other purpose, certainly no expectation of it being produced.
Unless you make it an unbendable A4 sheet, that'll never happen. If it's card sized it's just too handy. Young looking and want to buy a beer? Use you voter ID card, it's a guarantee you're over 18. Want to open a bank account or get a new phone number? Use your ID card. Etc. Anything where ID is required will automatically default to the new card as everyone has one.
^ that would at least have the benefit of motivating people to register on the electoral roll!
And how do you quantify it?
one party – you pay less tax
another party – more funding for NHS
Merge them? "Would you prefer [1] a better-funded NHS or [2] to pay less tax?"
If nothing else, it might make people think about consequences. It is course a fatally flawed question; the poor can't afford more taxation and the rich are tax dodgers with private healthcare. 😁
Mogrim
Unless you make it an unbendable A4 sheet, that’ll never happen. If it’s card sized it’s just too handy. Young looking and want to buy a beer? Use you voter ID card, it’s a guarantee you’re over 18. Want to open a bank account or get a new phone number? Use your ID card. Etc. Anything where ID is required will automatically default to the new card as everyone has one.
True ... though it's the expectation of "carrying ID" concerns me most. I've done it for work for years but sometihng isn't right about needing it to walk down the street?
I've got my driving license photocard in my wallet and admittedly it's useful to pop to the PO/collection place but I don't often carry my wallet riding.
Anything where ID is required will automatically default to the new card as everyone has one.
Yup see the misuse of NI, SSN etc. Even though they are crap as identifiers due to the large number of edge cases.
True … though it’s the expectation of “carrying ID” concerns me most. I’ve done it for work for years but sometihng isn’t right about needing it to walk down the street?
I live in Spain and we have ID cards. We don't have to carry it on us, but if you do have it and a policeman asks you to identify yourself you have to produce it. And if you don't have it you'll have to produce it at the station. TBH the ID card doesn't bother me, what I dislike is the fact the police can demand you identify yourself just because they feel like it. (And it doesn't really affect me, but if you're black or arabic...)
Sure you can at least that one (on averages and percentiles at least)
Average GP visits / hospital etc. etc. vs cost to go private.
Ultimately it’s what private medical insurance companies do everyday just like accounts will tell you the change in net income.
it is possible to do, I mean if (based on a suggestion upthread) polling cards listed headline manifesto promises rather than party names, how does the average person make a descision on what is better.
here is a brief summary of 2019 Tory promises:
-No income tax, VAT or National Insurance rises
-Leave the EU
-Deliver 50,000 more nurses by 2024
-Pensions to rise by at least 2.5 per cent a year
-Improve the energy efficiency of social housing
-Reach net zero by 2050
-Launch a democracy commission
That mainly sounds quite good, really.
The idea that instead of naming the parties, the polling card will read:
Hughbert Poshbottom - "kick out the brown people, privatise all industry and stop benefits"
David Workington - "25 quid minimum wage, free utilities for all and world peace"
Scott MacEdinburgh - "Scottish independance and we literally have no further ideas"
And people pick from that seems a bit far fetched.
it is possible to do, I mean if (based on a suggestion upthread) polling cards listed headline manifesto promises rather than party names, how does the average person make a descision on what is better.
here is a brief summary of 2019 Tory promises:
-No income tax, VAT or National Insurance rises
-Leave the EU
-Deliver 50,000 more nurses by 2024
-Pensions to rise by at least 2.5 per cent a year
-Improve the energy efficiency of social housing
-Reach net zero by 2050
-Launch a democracy commissionThat mainly sounds quite good, really.
That's the problem, though. You can make a lovely list of promises, but they're all going to be nice things, with unicorns prancing around green fields under a perfect rainbow. It's not grown-up politics, it's an Amazon wish-list. Where's the costing for all this? Where are the downsides discussed?
It’s not grown-up politics, it’s an Amazon wish-list. Where’s the costing for all this? Where are the downsides discussed?
exactly. manifesto statements should come with a proviso that if any promise is not met, a general election is held.
the greens will still be able to say what they want of course.
-No income tax, VAT or National Insurance rises
-Leave the EU
-Deliver 50,000 more nurses by 2024
-Pensions to rise by at least 2.5 per cent a year
-Improve the energy efficiency of social housing
-Reach net zero by 2050
-Launch a democracy commission
That’s the problem, though. You can make a lovely list of promises, but they’re all going to be nice things, with
unicorns prancing around green fields under a perfect rainbow. It’s not grown-up politics, it’s an Amazon wish-list. Where’s the costing for all this? Where are the downsides discussed?
Most of those are going to fail a fact check though....
If they had to be SMART then the meaningless stuff is weeded out as well.
They aren't even close to being acceptable on someone's annual appraisal, let alone governing a country.
(I'm guessing these are your bullets but that's fine for discussion)
-Improve the energy efficiency of social housing
Meaningless drivel ...could mean anything or nothing, how many, how is the improvement measured ... how is this going to be funded ????
Once they have to justify each "promise" the other parties get to pick it apart and it can't be used in election material until the independent fact checker has passed it. [AS I mentioned like the OBR does with a non-mini-not really a budget budget]
And once again we're down a rabbit hole of theoretical nonsense rather than addressing the actual issue.
Who gives a **** what your ideas are, ID is the reality.
If you want to vote, why would you object to showing ID? Baffling. You obviously give your consent, and in doing so give legitimacy to the system. So why hide yourself? You already give consent for all the CCTV around, by voting.
It's bread and circuses anyway. Eventually they will bring out an in vivo chip / neural lace through which all your data and transactions can be monitored. The dumb-masses will clamour for it as it will be highly incentivised (or at least seem to be).
If you want to vote, why would you object to showing ID?
FFS it's choosing ID that not everyone has that's the fundamentally issue!
If the Govt, any Govt, demand that we have a particular ID to perform a basic civic duty then they should issue them for free. End.
Just to be clear, this impacts me not one iota, I can afford whatever it is they demand and I ALWAYS vote, but, I'm not supporting any law (or Party) that takes away the right of any citizen to not have the vote (irrelevant whether they use it or not).
If you want to vote, why would you object to showing ID?
Edit - I answered a rather different question
To the actual question- its because there is no issue with voter fraud and its a cynical political ploy to suppress the votes of those more likely to vote labour.
ID cards
Because it reverses the whole relationship between citizens and the state.
At the moment the basic legal principle is that you do not have to identify yourself. The burden of proof remains with the state. ID cards only work if this is reversed so the state has the right to ask who you are and its up to you to prove it.
Thats on a philosophical point. On a practical one what will happen is that there will be significant sections of society going "off radar" and thus losing rights without realising it. Not just dodgy folk but all sorts will fall thru the cracks. also how do you prove your entitlement to an ID card?
I can see huge advantages but those two things make me uneasy. Its back to the " If you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear" Baloney
they will bring out an in vivo chip / neural lace through which all your data and transactions can be monitored
NHS No. = DVLA No. = Passport No. = NI No. = FAC No. = Travel Pass No. = Library Card No.
That's how it is in e.g. Denmark and it works as long as the government is honest. But suppose your library card flags up that you have been reading 1984/Communist Manifesto/etc etc and this is tied to your passport application? Essentially you're creating the potential for a huge Facebook/Cambridge Analytica scenario.
<div class=”tenor-gif-embed” data-postid=”20017163″ data-share-method=”host” data-aspect-ratio=”0.975″ data-width=”100%”>Thumbs Up Conspiracy GIFfrom Thumbs Up GIFs</div> <script type=”text/javascript” async src=” https://tenor.com/embed.js”></script>
Right-click, copy image address.
Gave up on the gif. Not sure those direct img links are permanent Cougar.
That’s how it is in e.g. Denmark and it works as long as the government is honest. But suppose your library card flags up that you have been reading 1984/Communist Manifesto/etc etc and this is tied to your passport application? Essentially you’re creating the potential for a huge Facebook/Cambridge Analytica scenario.
I have to say that not long ago I'd have said yes the government SHOULD have a way of linking Driving Licence, Passport, NHS no, NI no, Tax no (URI?), Address, Council tax, perhaps even qualifications and criminal records etc. The "system" for a lot of these things could be much improved if they were all joined up. Indeed it feels like logging into some govt systems probably does provide some of this but in a totally arse about tit way (e.g. to login and do a self assessment I think i used my passport, to renew my passport I used my driving license photo, my tax records obviously have my NI number etc - someone who had access could probably join the dots with enough effort. But imagine if I could just log in one place change my address and everyone knew. Imagine if within an NHS system a doctor could login and see I have a driving license and take that into account when prescribing or immediately advising DVLA that I am not currently fit to drive, imagine how hard it could become to be employed "off the books" if all these things were linked. I'd support all the benefits that could bring. I'd even support it being used to limit access to services to those who qualify (no need for me to carry ID - go to the doc, provide my info and it could pop up my passport picture) etc. You could "unlock" bits of your ID record to organisations or individuals - e.g. you might show an employer some bits of your ID, tax, quals etc but probably not your medical records; you might want to fly a plane - so would share at least part of your medical records but they don't need your tax etc.
Then things like Facebook and CA came along. Now they were doing sneaky, nasty shit with data specifically to manipulate people to do things. Were politicians aghast? Were they looking to toughen the powers of the ICO and criminalise using people's data to manipulate them? No - really the opposite, political parties (and their funding influencers) were part of the bloody problem. Political leaders want to track more (like which internet sites we visit) and regulate less. Suddenly I'm not so sure I want to trust governments with this sort of data.
Lol. You can post tin foil hat GIFs all you want, the march towards technofacsist totalitarian nightmare is continuing apace to anyone with half a functioning brain cell. Even Guardian readers.
The stuff I mention above is already in existence and being considered by 'governments'.
PARKLIFE!
The stuff I mention above is already in existence and being considered by ‘governments’.
Links please.
Actually, don't bother. You're a stone bonker and this is just thread derailment.
Voting should be done via a simple game, with buttons and smiling/sad face icons. The faces represent poor people, middle class, bankers, the NHS, asylum seekers etc and you can adjust the sliders to make them happy or sad. You can also adjust the tax slider. Each person gets to set up the sliders how them want then submit their preferences.
As we are in 2022 voting should all be online linked to NI number (people without computer/internet can set it up in dedicated place).
That would also allow people to vote in more of a referendum style than every 5 years by voting on key policy proposals, vote their MP out each year if they think they are doing a shit job etc,.
Could even gamify it somehow to get those youngsters interested.
Sounds a bit too much like actual democracy though I suppose...