You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
“Britons living abroad for more than 15 years to be given right to vote”
I'm interested how that will work. Will there be regional contituencies (with 11 MPs representing French people living in different parts of the World) for overseas voters like the French system or will you be assigned to where you left from? Depending on which of those is the case I'll be voting Green or Plaid Cymru.
potentially resulting in Stay at Home order
Ha ha! Show me anyone in the UK who's ever had, or even at risk of having, even a slap on the wrist, never mind a "stay at home order" for not having or using any app. That "potentially" is doing a lot of work in that bullshit statement, isn't it.
big_n_daft
Free MemberPlenty of people on the remain side of Brexit are wondering why what they saw as a clear cut facts based discussion was lost…
Almost like having the facts denied by people in positions of power and responsibility caused a problem, isn't it. But that's not what we're talking about. If the idea was really to deal with "concerns" then there would be no reliable sources talking about anything except that voter fraud isn't an option and voter ID is a stupid idea. FB etc could still be pouring out misinformation and lies but it's the "legitimate" sources that give those strength.
Except my 91 year old mum who lives in a care home so has no car and hence driving licence. Her passport renewal was turned down (presumably because she was born in India) although she’s had a passport since she was 18
Being born abroad this sort of thing genuinely frightens me. As it is I have to keep my passport up to date to work despite having lived in the U.K. from 6 weeks old and the more the Conservatives build in barriers for non-problems the more likely it is that I and others will get caught in the consequences.
The spokesperson on Newsnight last night was terrible, I assume she was a Govt lackey.
Emily Maitlis said that the risk of voter fraud was akin to being hit by lightning 3 times. The reaction was typically ignorant. and she was really struggling to smile and stay civil when Maitlis was destroying her argument. It would be quite amusing if this wasn't such a serious power grab.
Being born abroad this sort of thing genuinely frightens me. As it is I have to keep my passport up to date to work despite having lived in the U.K. from 6 weeks old and the more the Conservatives build in barriers for non-problems the more likely it is that I and others will get caught in the consequences.
Pretty much identical circumstances for me. Last year I moved to another Civil Service department. My passport lapsed in between showing it at the interview and showing it again when I started the job, so had to find and produce other ID.
Despite having been in the Civil Service 17 years, and produced documents confirming my right to work here several times when I've changed jobs and departments, I still had to produce photo ID document(s) I don't practically need to have, or jump through hoops with other docs.
It's similar with setting up new bank accounts as well.
If we are moving towards having to produce photo ID to access work or services, the government needs to be providing it for free.
At this point, I'd like to ask, once again, why having a single national ID would be so bad?
If it was made available to anyone with the right to live and work in the UK, for free (or as part of that process if you were applying), would it not make a lot of things easier?
At this point, I’d like to ask, once again, why having a single national ID would be so bad?
You could do no worse than look to what our current PM once said of them
f I am ever asked, on the streets of London, or in any other venue, public or private, to produce my ID card as evidence that I am who I say I am, when I have done nothing wrong and am simply ambling along and breathing God’s fresh air like any other freeborn Englishman, then I will take that card out of my wallet and physically eat it in the presence of whatever emanation of the state has demanded I produce it.”
I hope the cards are as solid as ours then. My last one survived 15 years of abuse and if forced to eat it I reckon it would have taken days rather than hours.
I worked in Sweden in the 1990s, your personnummer was necessary for everything including renting a video so was completely accepted.
The UK is different, we've had propaganda about how we're better than foreigners because we don't have to produce ID at least since I was a child in the 60s/70s. Despite needing photo ID for flights or buying alcohol if you look young.
And now we can see how hard it's been made for EU nationals to get ID showing their right to remain - does anyone seriously think that a UK ID card will be better implemented? Any gaps in your employment record, proof of banking, proof of housing, proof of nationality will cause a rejection.
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.
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.
This lot in charge will wait until the last few weeks before the election, announce a scheme run by a Donor and that scheme will then have so many delays and faults that the majority of the ID's will arrive late. There's also the issue of it relying on people to apply, that breeds voter apathy.
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?
This echo's my thoughts. If the current system has 30m voters currently (65% turnout of 45m eligible) and only 100 attempted illegal votes in person then that ratio is so small that it's not worth considering statistically. If the ID system reduces the voter turnout by 2-3m or more then it actually makes the effect of the odd illegal vote have more effect, but the effect is still so tiny it doesn't matter therefore the whole scheme has just reduced the voter pool. Those voters who couldn't vote are far more likely to be from disadvantaged, poor or ethnic households that generally don't vote Tory. That's straight-out voter manipulation.
The issue of postal votes is far more open to abuse. The wife/husband can easily intercept their partner's vote or force them to vote a certain way. Deceased votes can be cast. Forms can be forged. But making that system more robust and harder to access would potentially rule out votes from the elderly who have trouble getting to the polling station on the day or people who live abroad, all traditionally Tory voters.
Even if it is all being introduced legitimately and without political bias (highly unlikely) it still favours Tory votes over other parties and on that point alone it should not be introduced.
£15 for a citizen card delivered within 21 days. Last for 3 years too.
But why insist on anyone getting one? And buying a new one for every general election?
What if you forget to take your (otherwise utterly useless) citizen card to work that day, and so can't vote after your late shift?
Remember, for other people £15 matters. Other people don't travel abroad. Other people dream of owning a car. Other people don't do a nice easy nine to five shift.
Far too many people here with the "it won't disenfranchise people like me, so it's fine" attitude... ignoring that that is the point of this move... to disenfranchise people who don't live a life anything like yours.
£15 for a citizen card delivered within 21 days. Last for 3 years too.
Good to know. I will go without food this week and buy a citizen card...
It is a lot of money to some, but photo ID can be useful for so many things. If someone is in an accident for example.
Having to pay is not ideal. It would be great if it was cheaper or free for some but where do you draw the line?
I'd draw the line at needing voter ID as it's a pointless concept in the UK unless the objective is to discourage voters from certain sections of society
I’ve only half read this thread because it’s moving to fast, but cross referencing a couple of points from Kelvin, would the same demographic that can’t afford to pay £15 for a card at every election be the same demographic that don’t typically register to vote? The poor/young etc. When I was skint in my younger years £15 wouldn't be in my disposable income, and I like to vote. There shouldn’t be an economic barrier to a democratic right.
would the same demographic that can’t afford to pay £15 for a card at every election be the same demographic that don’t typically register to vote?
There may well be a lot of overlap.... but why make it a bigger hoop to jump though to be able to use your vote? There seem to be no case for VoterID beyond... "it doesn't effect people like me, and I believe against all the evidence available that in person voterID is a problem that needs addressing". VoterID effects a lot of people very unlike them, and introducing it to solve a non-existent problem is voter suppression... pure and simple.
£15 for a citizen card delivered within 21 days. Last for 3 years too.
Good to know. I will go without food this week and buy a citizen card…
Beat me to it.
If the government requires us to have ID, they can pay for it out of general taxation rather than penalise those who can afford it the least.
VoterID effects a lot of people very unlike them, and introducing it to solve a non-existent problem is voter suppression… pure and simple.
Nice summary of the debate.
£15 for a citizen card delivered within 21 days. Last for 3 years too.
Poll Tax II : Now they’re after democracy
No, it’s not a lot of money to me, but it is a voting tax and therefore wrong.
it may be a lot of money to others, and it’s still wrong.
but it is a voting tax and therefore wrong.
Can't believe some people think that should be acceptable.
There shouldn’t be an economic barrier to a democratic right.
This puts it perfectly.
Given the UK Government attempts on IT Projects, this is already doomed. Add GDPR plus the logistics issue in, and it is dead. It is another 'good' idea that simply won't survive.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2021/05/heritage-foundation-dark-money-voter-suppression-laws/
History is written by the winners.
Or the referee... It seems
Nothing wrong with a members club requiring proof of membership (not a club I’d join, but hey). Utterly irrelevant to VoterID discussion.
Though it's a good illustration of a card being used to keep unwanted people out.
Paying for Tory/ Labour membership is enough to stop people voting in the respective leadership elections and paying for an ID card would be enough to stop people voting in national elections.
To be fair, I’d still be ranting if it somehow affected older, richer, white Tory voters as well.
Voter suppression is voter suppression
Totally agree, being against voter suppression isn't a partisan issue for me. The more people that vote, the better, whomever they vote for.
Stop answering the repeated bad faith question, just call them an idiot
This approach led to Brexit. You were either pro EU or labeled a racist idiot. Rather than educating people and changing minds we just cemented people's views by making them defensive.
I'll stick to answering questions with well reasoned and argued thoughts if that's OK.
This approach led to Brexit. You were either pro EU or labeled a racist idiot. Rather than educating people and changing minds we just cemented people’s views by making them defensive.
While we're busy agreeing with each other, this as well
If you read the first few hundred pages of the original Brexit thread you'll find some of us refrained from calling people idiots, engaged with the likes of Jamba and spent a lot of time and effort systematically countering the falacies with links to reliable sources. Did that change minds? Not a jot.
In real life the more reliable evidence I presented the more people became dismissive of anything reasoned and just barricaded themselves behind unchallengables such as racism worn as a badge of honour (edit: and giving a feeling of superiority) and contempt for foreigners.
There shouldn’t be an economic barrier to a democratic right.
There won’t be, if the nice trustworthy Johnson & Company see fit to provide everyone of voting age with a suitable ID card at no added cost to the recipient.
I've just thought.
If the government think that fraudulent is such a big issue as to require photo ID,
Why are they still in power when if their own argument is true they were put there by deception?
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.
£15 for a citizen card delivered within 21 days. Last for 3 years too.
...
It is a lot of money to some, but photo ID can be useful for so many things. If someone is in an accident for example.
You've answered your own 'no downside' claim here, plenty of people don't have £15. In an era where we've been listening to people screaming about democracy and sovereignty for the last five years, you're supporting a "pay to vote" scheme. Are you sure about that?
Let's unpick the rest.
What "other things"?
How would you define as "plenty of time" to issue 55 million photo ID cards using a system that literally does not exist yet? We've been issuing passports for six hundred years now and it still takes three weeks to process as a rolling concern rather than suddenly having to do the entire country.
What good is it going to be in an accident? Are you expecting the ambulance staff to verify that you're not an illegal immigrant before starting a blood transfusion? I can write "my name is... in case of accident please contact..." on a Post-It in my wallet, it'll serve the same purpose and won't cost me fifteen quid.