Move that 2.2% from UKIP to Tory and the Tories are clearly in front
If only there was a recent example of treating UKIP voters as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Tory Party was shown to be rubbish.
The Tories are on 40% now, down 2% from the general election and Labour on 40% now, unchanged from the general election. UKIP are on 4% as opposed to 2% at the general election. Now simple maths tells you where that 2% has come from!
UKIP didn't stand in half the seats. So you might argue had they done so they would have gone nearer 4 per cent. The 2 per cent didn't vote UKIP because they couldn't.
Which in that case means they were almost certainly Tory voters in June 2017 which means the current poll average is virtually unchanged from the 2017 general election result provided UKIP do not put up more candidates next time
There is a potential problem with the number of people who lack photo ID, but that shouldn't be beyond the wit of man to solve.
You could always issue people with compulsory ID cards and hold the details on a central register. Or chip them at birth and fit them with RFIDs so they can be tracked. There are many avenues open to those who wish to ensure voter ID...
...or you could just accept that some people cannot or won't get ID and this is a price you should pay for a free society.
Ireland has been rolling out a public services ID card. It didn't exist five years ago and now 75 per cent of the resident population has one and rising all the time. It makes accessing public services and health care easier - it would smooth throughput in the NHS, local council officers and more.
The elderly get free bus passes - most heavily used by the poor. They are photo IDs are provided free bus travel across England Scotland and Wales on one card.
If Ireland can do this - why can't we?
In Ireland it is a voluntary scheme, you are not compelled to have one.
On one specific pint I would disagree with OGH. The fact that only 28 allegations of identity fraud were made does not mean that was all there were. It could just be that it is extremely hard to detect but is in fact rife. (I don't actually believe that but pointing out the logical flaw in the header)
I see pb's cohort of ultra-Remainers is on duty early this morning.
I wonder why.
Remainers have salaried jobs and can't post at work, so their posts clump at specific times. Leavers have a lot of money or little money and are normally less constrained from posting at specific times, leading to a more even distribution. This leads to the weird phenom where PB gets more remainery late at night. As snow has close many workplaces today, we have some weird posting patterns.
Alternatively Leaver posters tend to be successful entrepreneurs with their own businesses who therefore understand the value of independence and self reliance. And as an aside have more control over their own time so can post during normal working hours.
For starters, I would vehemently question your arrogation of "independence and self-reliance" to the entrepreneurial classes. Not everybody with a startup is Thoreau, and not everybody with a salary is a serf. Don't be rude.
People being what they are, they tend in all cases I to do illegal things which are to their advantage, if they think the risk/reward ratio is in their favour. That is why you lock your house and your car and do not have your PIN numbers handily tattooed on your wrist. So, my evidence that it happens is: none, except human nature (and 28 alleged cases in 2017). Your evidence that it doesn't happen is: none, and in this one instance the innate goodness and decency of absolutely everybody uniquely wins out and ensures that the system needs no policing.
You don't do months of research into local burglary stats before fitting locks to your house, you just do it.
There's also a point very specific to voting, here. I attach a huge amount of importance to ensuring that I vote in each and every general election, despite the fact that my individual vote makes absolutely no difference to anything. I assume you, and everyone else here, feels the same. The importance of the act is maximally disproportionate to its actual effectiveness, and the theft of the right to do it should be judged on its importance in that sense, not its actual consequences. I therefore don't attach any weight to "it makes no difference" arguments.
I'm not saying it doesn't happen; just that there is no evidence that it occurs to the extent that it is a problem (i.e. changes the results of an election).
I believe it is important for everyone eligible to be able to vote, and this means balancing out the ease of access to vote, and the security of the ballot. Using a slightly silly example, we could have more security by asking everyone to vote at their local council offices, but this would reduce the accessibility. Likewise, we could go for electronic voting and dramatically increase accessibility, but reduce the security.
This move appears to tackle a problem that is essentially non-existent, and will reduce accessibility. If we believe it's a problem, then we should do more research into the scale of the issue, and if that shows that it is an issue, look at the best way of addressing it.
I'm also in favour of compulsory voting (with caveats), but that's a different argument.
I dispute your test for "is a problem" (penultimate para of my last post).
There have been things going on for years (Rotherham, Oxfam) which we didn't know about despite the fact that they necessarily generate stacks of evidence, in the form of victims. If we didn't detect them, how can we draw conclusions from the fact that we haven't detected personation which leaves not a trace of evidence? And the fact that it hasn't caused a problem yet, doesn't mean it won't in future. You can get on fine for years without ever locking your front door, until you stop getting away with it.
There is a potential problem with the number of people who lack photo ID, but that shouldn't be beyond the wit of man to solve.
You could always issue people with compulsory ID cards and hold the details on a central register. Or chip them at birth and fit them with RFIDs so they can be tracked. There are many avenues open to those who wish to ensure voter ID...
...or you could just accept that some people cannot or won't get ID and this is a price you should pay for a free society.
Ireland has been rolling out a public services ID card. It didn't exist five years ago and now 75 per cent of the resident population has one and rising all the time. It makes accessing public services and health care easier - it would smooth throughput in the NHS, local council officers and more.
The elderly get free bus passes - most heavily used by the poor. They are photo IDs are provided free bus travel across England Scotland and Wales on one card.
If Ireland can do this - why can't we?
The Post Office refuse to accept the pensioner bus pass as a satisfactory form of ID when you go to pick up mail at the sorting office.
But they are fine with a bank card - debit or credit.
Some people don't have bank accounts.
The options you are describing are appropriate for a fulltime employee with a car and mobile phone in an urban area with the panoply of modern documentation: passport, drivers licence, bank card, etc. Some people don't fit that profile and never will.
No. No. No.
You are just trying to justify your opposition to something that cannot reasonably be opposed.
The number of people without a bank account (that will either come with a bank card or regular statements) has massively declined over the decades.
If you don't have a bank account then it is highly likely that you will still receive any bills in your name via post rather than electronically. If you don't receive any bills, you may well receive benefits paperwork.
How many registered voters do you think there are that don't have some sort of official paperwork? Whether that is from their council, a benefits office, a bank or any other similar body.
The question is whether that small number is the observable tip of a significant iceberg.
It's been remarked upon repeatedly that if a few thousand votes had gone either way, May could have a 60 seat majority, or Corbyn could be PM. A small number of precisely located fraudsters can cause as much democratic harm as an unfocused but massive number.
There is a potential problem with the number of people who lack photo ID, but that shouldn't be beyond the wit of man to solve.
It's simple: require the person's local authority to provide a photo ID for free, on submission of appropriate paper-based documentation in person.
I see pb's cohort of ultra-Remainers is on duty early this morning.
I wonder why.
Remainers have salaried jobs and can't post at work, so their posts clump at specific times. Leavers have a lot of money or little money and are normally less constrained from posting at specific times, leading to a more even distribution. This leads to the weird phenom where PB gets more remainery late at night. As snow has close many workplaces today, we have some weird posting patterns.
Alternatively Leaver posters tend to be successful entrepreneurs with their own businesses who therefore understand the value of independence and self reliance. And as an aside have more control over their own time so can post during normal working hours.
For starters, I would vehemently question your arrogation of "independence and self-reliance" to the entrepreneurial classes. Not everybody with a startup is Thoreau, and not everybody with a salary is a serf. Don't be rude.
Says the man who claimed Leavers were either too poor or too rich to be bothered about the real world effects of Brexit.
Look to yourself before getting on your high horse.
I see pb's cohort of ultra-Remainers is on duty early this morning.
I wonder why.
Remainers have salaried jobs and can't post at work, so their posts clump at specific times. Leavers have a lot of money or little money and are normally less constrained from posting at specific times, leading to a more even distribution. This leads to the weird phenom where PB gets more remainery late at night. As snow has close many workplaces today, we have some weird posting patterns.
Alternatively Leaver posters tend to be successful entrepreneurs with their own businesses who therefore understand the value of independence and self reliance. And as an aside have more control over their own time so can post during normal working hours.
Nationalism and obsession with group identity seems to me to be the antithesis of independence and self reliance.
I dispute your test for "is a problem" (penultimate para of my last post).
There have been things going on for years (Rotherham, Oxfam) which we didn't know about despite the fact that they necessarily generate stacks of evidence, in the form of victims. If we didn't detect them, how can we draw conclusions from the fact that we haven't detected personation which leaves not a trace of evidence? And the fact that it hasn't caused a problem yet, doesn't mean it won't in future. You can get on fine for years without ever locking your front door, until you stop getting away with it.
Which is why I'm in favour of the EC doing studies to see if it is a problem, and if it is, its scale.
Also, given the fact that majorities in most constituencies are in the thousands, how would you (if you were so inclined) arrange personation to swing the result in such a constituency? It seems much easier to do with things like postal voting (and difficult enough then).
There is a potential problem with the number of people who lack photo ID, but that shouldn't be beyond the wit of man to solve.
You could always issue people with compulsory ID cards and hold the details on a central register. Or chip them at birth and fit them with RFIDs so they can be tracked. There are many avenues open to those who wish to ensure voter ID...
...or you could just accept that some people cannot or won't get ID and this is a price you should pay for a free society.
Ireland has been rolling out a public services ID card. It didn't exist five years ago and now 75 per cent of the resident population has one and rising all the time. It makes accessing public services and health care easier - it would smooth throughput in the NHS, local council officers and more.
The elderly get free bus passes - most heavily used by the poor. They are photo IDs are provided free bus travel across England Scotland and Wales on one card.
If Ireland can do this - why can't we?
In Ireland it is a voluntary scheme, you are not compelled to have one.
Yes it's voluntary. But you can't apply for a passport or access most welfare benefits without one or access a host of public services easily. You will soon need one to get student grants and a driving licence.
So in practice it is essential if you want to do a Heap of things the vast majority of people will want to do. And those that don't have one will end up needing one eventually. . Just make it voluntary and then make it impossible to function over time without one.
I see pb's cohort of ultra-Remainers is on duty early this morning.
I wonder why.
Remainers have salaried jobs and can't post at work, so their posts clump at specific times. Leavers have a lot of money or little money and are normally less constrained from posting at specific times, leading to a more even distribution. This leads to the weird phenom where PB gets more remainery late at night. As snow has close many workplaces today, we have some weird posting patterns.
Alternatively Leaver posters tend to be successful entrepreneurs with their own businesses who therefore understand the value of independence and self reliance. And as an aside have more control over their own time so can post during normal working hours.
Nationalism and obsession with group identity seems to me to be the antithesis of independence and self reliance.
But that is because you understand neither. You advocate ever more supranational constraints on independence. You laughably claimed yesterday to be in favour of individual liberty and yet you support the sorts of organisations that are directly opposed to such concepts.
You are just trying to justify your opposition to something that cannot reasonably be opposed.
The number of people without a bank account (that will either come with a bank card or regular statements) has massively declined over the decades.
If you don't have a bank account then it is highly likely that you will still receive any bills in your name via post rather than electronically. If you don't receive any bills, you may well receive benefits paperwork.
How many registered voters do you think there are that don't have some sort of official paperwork? Whether that is from their council, a benefits office, a bank or any other similar body.
There's over a million and a half people in this country who are unbanked, people without a current account or savings account.
The increase of the Kafkaesque CIFAS markers hasn't helped either.
Edit - Your point about the number of people without a bank account declining is wrong, it was 1 million in 2010 and 1.7m in 2015.
I see pb's cohort of ultra-Remainers is on duty early this morning.
I wonder why.
Remainers have salaried jobs and can't post at work, so their posts clump at specific times. Leavers have a lot of money or little money and are normally less constrained from posting at specific times, leading to a more even distribution. This leads to the weird phenom where PB gets more remainery late at night. As snow has close many workplaces today, we have some weird posting patterns.
Alternatively Leaver posters tend to be successful entrepreneurs with their own businesses who therefore understand the value of independence and self reliance. And as an aside have more control over their own time so can post during normal working hours.
For starters, I would vehemently question your arrogation of "independence and self-reliance" to the entrepreneurial classes. Not everybody with a startup is Thoreau, and not everybody with a salary is a serf. Don't be rude.
Says the man who claimed Leavers were either too poor or too rich to be bothered about the real world effects of Brexit.
Look to yourself before getting on your high horse.
That's an oversimplification, but taking it at face value my point was value-free (and arguably accurate) and your point was value-laden (and arguably inaccurate)
I see pb's cohort of ultra-Remainers is on duty early this morning.
I wonder why.
Remainers have salaried jobs and can't post at work, so their posts clump at specific times. Leavers have a lot of money or little money and are normally less constrained from posting at specific times, leading to a more even distribution. This leads to the weird phenom where PB gets more remainery late at night. As snow has close many workplaces today, we have some weird posting patterns.
Alternatively Leaver posters tend to be successful entrepreneurs with their own businesses who therefore understand the value of independence and self reliance. And as an aside have more control over their own time so can post during normal working hours.
Nationalism and obsession with group identity seems to me to be the antithesis of independence and self reliance.
But that is because you understand neither. You advocate ever more supranational constraints on independence. You laughably claimed yesterday to be in favour of individual liberty and yet you support the sorts of organisations that are directly opposed to such concepts.
I was thinking overnight that maybe we ought have Brexit-free days on PB when we find something else to talk about with anybody's edging in to leave or remain territory finding that their comments get deleted
I would be perfectly happy if you had Brexit-free months, to be honest. If this site wishes to maintain its rep as "the best online resource for betting on politics" then your Brexit-Free days would be a step in the right direction. May I suggest Wednesdays and/or Thursdays? Harry Thingy's excellent local roundups are on Thursdays and we could have some articles focussed on local elections or other elections and the odds therein.
Deleting them smacks of censorship
Perhaps you should recolour them neon pink or something so we all know who the offenders are?
I see pb's cohort of ultra-Remainers is on duty early this morning.
I wonder why.
Remainers have salaried jobs and can't post at work, so their posts clump at specific times. Leavers have a lot of money or little money and are normally less constrained from posting at specific times, leading to a more even distribution. This leads to the weird phenom where PB gets more remainery late at night. As snow has close many workplaces today, we have some weird posting patterns.
Except that's bollocks.
All the regular pb Leavers who post on here that I know have full-time jobs.
I wasn't implying Leavers don't have full-time jobs and you missed my use of the word "salaried". To explain...
Some people have full-time jobs with larger companies and there are HR departments and restrictions on Internet viewing. Some people work for small companies and can surf freely. Some people work at higher echelons and the rules are freer/non-existent. Others are self-employed. All have full-time jobs, but their posting patterns and voting patterns are different.
Got to say i'm impressed that you know the financial and employment situations of all that post here.
In reality you have no idea who has money or otherwise and how people earn a living
Even those who state on here their profession / income might not necessarily be telling the truth
The number of people without a bank account (that will either come with a bank card or regular statements) has massively declined over the decades.
If you don't have a bank account then it is highly likely that you will still receive any bills in your name via post rather than electronically. If you don't receive any bills, you may well receive benefits paperwork.
How many registered voters do you think there are that don't have some sort of official paperwork? Whether that is from their council, a benefits office, a bank or any other similar body.
Oh good. A registration state. Everybody must have paperwork, and everybody that doesn't can be safely ignored.
You are just trying to justify your opposition to something that cannot reasonably be opposed.
The number of people without a bank account (that will either come with a bank card or regular statements) has massively declined over the decades.
If you don't have a bank account then it is highly likely that you will still receive any bills in your name via post rather than electronically. If you don't receive any bills, you may well receive benefits paperwork.
How many registered voters do you think there are that don't have some sort of official paperwork? Whether that is from their council, a benefits office, a bank or any other similar body.
I think that many people who live well-organised lives really struggle to imagine what a disorganised life is like - I remember the incredulity which some here expressed when I said in another context that not everyone knows their NI number or can readily lay their hands on it.
Real life: some people live in temporary accommodation all the time - I know one woman who has been staying in different B&Bs for years, and struggles to prove she exists at all in the form now required by letting agents. They move often, sometimes every few months, They don't drive or have a passport. They have as little as possible to do with authorities, not necessarily because they are deliberately avoiding legal duties but because life is just so overwhelming that filling out forms etc. is one hassle too much. Requiring that they bring a polling card OR a form of non-photo ID would be a reasonable step, but not a photo ID.
It's true that people like this often aren't registered to vote, a separate issue. But if they have managed that, really it's unreasonable to require them to produce additional photo ID as well. It's ironical that all these issues would be solved by having universal ID cards, yet there is I think an overlap between people who demand that voters carry photo ID but who oppose ID cards.
I dispute your test for "is a problem" (penultimate para of my last post).
There have been things going on for years (Rotherham, Oxfam) which we didn't know about despite the fact that they necessarily generate stacks of evidence, in the form of victims. If we didn't detect them, how can we draw conclusions from the fact that we haven't detected personation which leaves not a trace of evidence? And the fact that it hasn't caused a problem yet, doesn't mean it won't in future. You can get on fine for years without ever locking your front door, until you stop getting away with it.
Which is why I'm in favour of the EC doing studies to see if it is a problem, and if it is, its scale.
Also, given the fact that majorities in most constituencies are in the thousands, how would you (if you were so inclined) arrange personation to swing the result in such a constituency? It seems much easier to do with things like postal voting (and difficult enough then).
Again, in a democracy personation is absolutely bad, independent of its effectiveness.
Studies cost time and money, and in this instance are likely to yield false assurances. Making the system secure, on the other hand, is incredibly easy. You and I are successfully validating our identity at least tens of times a day with tokens and passwords and stuff. For the small minority who don't do that, workarounds are easily imagined. We mustn't make this like wealth tax, which always raises the problem (which in reality isn't one) of little old ladies on basic state pensions living alone in £25m mansions. Say you buy a house which has no front door lock; do you construct a hide and observe the door 24/7 for 6 months to assess the burglary risk, or do you put a lock in on day 1?
I dispute your test for "is a problem" (penultimate para of my last post).
There have been things going on for years (Rotherham, Oxfam) which we didn't know about despite the fact that they necessarily generate stacks of evidence, in the form of victims. If we didn't detect them, how can we draw conclusions from the fact that we haven't detected personation which leaves not a trace of evidence? And the fact that it hasn't caused a problem yet, doesn't mean it won't in future. You can get on fine for years without ever locking your front door, until you stop getting away with it.
Which is why I'm in favour of the EC doing studies to see if it is a problem, and if it is, its scale.
Also, given the fact that majorities in most constituencies are in the thousands, how would you (if you were so inclined) arrange personation to swing the result in such a constituency? It seems much easier to do with things like postal voting (and difficult enough then).
North East Fife - majority 2 votes Perth and North Perthshire – 21 votes Newcastle-under-Lyme – 30 votes Southampton Itchen – 31 votes Richmond – 45 votes Crewe & Nantwich – 48 votes Glasgow East – 75 votes Arfon – 92 votes
It would be very easy to come up with a scheme to manipulate the results in constituency where the majority is so slim.
I don't want the validity of any election to be questioned because our basic systems were so easy to be exploited.
Postal voting needs urgent reform.
Asking people to provide some basic form of ID in the polling station is so unreasonable as to make it impossible to understand why people are raising any concerns. Particularly when a significant part of the UK has been using voter ID for more than 30 years without any known problems with regards to suppressing voters as it being alleged would happen in the rest of the UK.
I have to pop out to see if any shops are open so I can get food. I'll assume the speech will be the very summit rhetoric and inspire the whole country to greater heights and feats of achievement to gladden the heart. Or not, as the case may be.
I don't have especially strong views on this issue - although my starting point would always be to take all sensible measures to protect the reliability of the poll. I wouldn't rely on the lack of prosections to support no action being required - I would flag that the lack of FGM prosections shouldn't be taken as evidence of the lack of FGM.
Given some of the tiny seat majorities in 2017, and the potential for knife-edge votes from those elected MPs in this Parliament, it behoves all concerned to show that no seats were settled by fraud.
I would just make the observation that having a strict requirement to obtain a photo ID is most likely to impact on the very elederly - those who vote disprportionately Tory. And those who are resident in the UK from EU countries who are eligible to vote in locals are disproportionately likely to already have photo ID, to have got here in the frst place.
My bigger worry on voting is the concern around postal votes for south Asian women being collected up before they ever get to see them, let alone get a chance to mark the ballot paprs themselves.
I was thinking overnight that maybe we ought have Brexit-free days on PB when we find something else to talk about with anybody's edging in to leave or remain territory finding that their comments get deleted
I would be perfectly happy if you had Brexit-free months, to be honest. If this site wishes to maintain its rep as "the best online resource for betting on politics" then your Brexit-Free days would be a step in the right direction. May I suggest Wednesdays and/or Thursdays? Harry Thingy's excellent local roundups are on Thursdays and we could have some articles focussed on local elections or other elections and the odds therein.
Deleting them smacks of censorship
Perhaps you should recolour them neon pink or something so we all know who the offenders are?
I was thinking overnight that maybe we ought have Brexit-free days on PB when we find something else to talk about with anybody's edging in to leave or remain territory finding that their comments get deleted
I would be perfectly happy if you had Brexit-free months, to be honest. If this site wishes to maintain its rep as "the best online resource for betting on politics" then your Brexit-Free days would be a step in the right direction. May I suggest Wednesdays and/or Thursdays? Harry Thingy's excellent local roundups are on Thursdays and we could have some articles focussed on local elections or other elections and the odds therein.
Deleting them smacks of censorship
Perhaps you should recolour them neon pink or something so we all know who the offenders are?
or two threads at a time, an 18 Certificate 'carry on eating each other on Brexit' thread and a everything else thread. it is getting a bit unpleasant from time to time
The number of people without a bank account (that will either come with a bank card or regular statements) has massively declined over the decades.
If you don't have a bank account then it is highly likely that you will still receive any bills in your name via post rather than electronically. If you don't receive any bills, you may well receive benefits paperwork.
How many registered voters do you think there are that don't have some sort of official paperwork? Whether that is from their council, a benefits office, a bank or any other similar body.
Oh good. A registration state. Everybody must have paperwork, and everybody that doesn't can be safely ignored.
You have to be registered to vote. It is the cornerstone of our electoral system.
Or are you seriously suggesting we do away with that?
The number of people without a bank account (that will either come with a bank card or regular statements) has massively declined over the decades.
If you don't have a bank account then it is highly likely that you will still receive any bills in your name via post rather than electronically. If you don't receive any bills, you may well receive benefits paperwork.
How many registered voters do you think there are that don't have some sort of official paperwork? Whether that is from their council, a benefits office, a bank or any other similar body.
Oh good. A registration state. Everybody must have paperwork, and everybody that doesn't can be safely ignored.
Agreed. (Agreed with your disdain I mean) If there are even a handful of people who do not fit the scheme because of circumstances beyond their control - the homeless for example? - then it is a bad scheme. You cannot disenfranchise people in that way to deal with a 'problem' of dubious severity.
Move that 2.2% from UKIP to Tory and the Tories are clearly in front
If only there was a recent example of treating UKIP voters as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Tory Party was shown to be rubbish.
The Tories are on 40% now, down 2% from the general election and Labour on 40% now, unchanged from the general election. UKIP are on 4% as opposed to 2% at the general election. Now simple maths tells you where that 2% has come from!
UKIP didn't stand in half the seats. So you might argue had they done so they would have gone nearer 4 per cent. The 2 per cent didn't vote UKIP because they couldn't.
Which in that case means they were almost certainly Tory voters in June 2017 which means the current poll average is virtually unchanged from the 2017 general election result provided UKIP do not put up more candidates next time
There is NO basis for that assumption which you go on repeating. This widespread assertion died at 10pm on June 8th last year. I
I dispute your test for "is a problem" (penultimate para of my last post).
There have been things going on for years (Rotherham, Oxfam) which we didn't know about despite the fact that they necessarily generate stacks of evidence, in the form of victims. If we didn't detect them, how can we draw conclusions from the fact that we haven't detected personation which leaves not a trace of evidence? And the fact that it hasn't caused a problem yet, doesn't mean it won't in future. You can get on fine for years without ever locking your front door, until you stop getting away with it.
Which is why I'm in favour of the EC doing studies to see if it is a problem, and if it is, its scale.
Also, given the fact that majorities in most constituencies are in the thousands, how would you (if you were so inclined) arrange personation to swing the result in such a constituency? It seems much easier to do with things like postal voting (and difficult enough then).
North East Fife - majority 2 votes Perth and North Perthshire – 21 votes Newcastle-under-Lyme – 30 votes Southampton Itchen – 31 votes Richmond – 45 votes Crewe & Nantwich – 48 votes Glasgow East – 75 votes Arfon – 92 votes
It would be very easy to come up with a scheme to manipulate the results in constituency where the majority is so slim.
I don't want the validity of any election to be questioned because our basic systems were so easy to be exploited.
Postal voting needs urgent reform.
(Snip)
Yes, but you need to know ahead of the time which constituencies are going to have such razor-thin majorities. I'm also interested in the way that personation would work on such a scale: how many people would be involved? (The greater the number of people, the more likely it is to be discovered).
Agree about PV, but it'd be good to see how the recent changes have affected things.
I was thinking overnight that maybe we ought have Brexit-free days on PB when we find something else to talk about with anybody's edging in to leave or remain territory finding that their comments get deleted
I would be perfectly happy if you had Brexit-free months, to be honest. If this site wishes to maintain its rep as "the best online resource for betting on politics" then your Brexit-Free days would be a step in the right direction. May I suggest Wednesdays and/or Thursdays? Harry Thingy's excellent local roundups are on Thursdays and we could have some articles focussed on local elections or other elections and the odds therein.
Deleting them smacks of censorship
Perhaps you should recolour them neon pink or something so we all know who the offenders are?
I was thinking overnight that maybe we ought have Brexit-free days on PB when we find something else to talk about with anybody's edging in to leave or remain territory finding that their comments get deleted
I would be perfectly happy if you had Brexit-free months, to be honest. If this site wishes to maintain its rep as "the best online resource for betting on politics" then your Brexit-Free days would be a step in the right direction. May I suggest Wednesdays and/or Thursdays? Harry Thingy's excellent local roundups are on Thursdays and we could have some articles focussed on local elections or other elections and the odds therein.
Deleting them smacks of censorship
Perhaps you should recolour them neon pink or something so we all know who the offenders are?
Move that 2.2% from UKIP to Tory and the Tories are clearly in front
If only there was a recent example of treating UKIP voters as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Tory Party was shown to be rubbish.
The Tories are on 40% now, down 2% from the general election and Labour on 40% now, unchanged from the general election. UKIP are on 4% as opposed to 2% at the general election. Now simple maths tells you where that 2% has come from!
UKIP didn't stand in half the seats. So you might argue had they done so they would have gone nearer 4 per cent. The 2 per cent didn't vote UKIP because they couldn't.
Which in that case means they were almost certainly Tory voters in June 2017 which means the current poll average is virtually unchanged from the 2017 general election result provided UKIP do not put up more candidates next time
There is NO basis for that assumption which you go on repeating. This widespread assertion died at 10pm on June 8th last year. I
Uh no it didn't considering over 50% of 2015 UKIP voters went Tory in 2017 and the 42% the Tories got was their highest voteshare since 1983.
The fact Labour also got 20% of UKIP voters and also squeezed the LD, SNP and Green votes and saw their vote go up even more to 40%, the highest Labour voteshare since 2001, does not change that.
In any case we were examining the 2% of 2017 Tory voters who now say they would vote UKIP in the polls
I don't know if this is some crazy left wing position to take, maybe I have just been reading too much Marx.
But might it be an idea to check we actually have a problem before we pay to enforce ID cards on millions of people to 'solve' the problem?
Nope it is neither crazy nor left wing. I agree with you entirely. And of course that is the nub of the problem. May has long been in favour of ID cards for all and is, in my eyes, an extreme authoritarian. This is simply one step along that route for her.
You are just trying to justify your opposition to something that cannot reasonably be opposed.
The number of people without a bank account (that will either come with a bank card or regular statements) has massively declined over the decades.
If you don't have a bank account then it is highly likely that you will still receive any bills in your name via post rather than electronically. If you don't receive any bills, you may well receive benefits paperwork.
How many registered voters do you think there are that don't have some sort of official paperwork? Whether that is from their council, a benefits office, a bank or any other similar body.
I think that many people who live well-organised lives really struggle to imagine what a disorganised life is like - I remember the incredulity which some here expressed when I said in another context that not everyone knows their NI number or can readily lay their hands on it.
Real life: some people live in temporary accommodation all the time - I know one woman who has been staying in different B&Bs for years, and struggles to prove she exists at all in the form now required by letting agents. They move often, sometimes every few months, They don't drive or have a passport. They have as little as possible to do with authorities, not necessarily because they are deliberately avoiding legal duties but because life is just so overwhelming that filling out forms etc. is one hassle too much. Requiring that they bring a polling card OR a form of non-photo ID would be a reasonable step, but not a photo ID.
It's true that people like this often aren't registered to vote, a separate issue. But if they have managed that, really it's unreasonable to require them to produce additional photo ID as well. It's ironical that all these issues would be solved by having universal ID cards, yet there is I think an overlap between people who demand that voters carry photo ID but who oppose ID cards.
I cannot see that it is unreasonable to demonstrate that you are the person you say you are when you enter the polling station to vote.
I think it is reasonable to have a wide range of ID options available (and any move to only accepting photo ID would need at least a 5-10 year lead time)
Any official correspondence (bank, council, benefits, bill), bank card (or similar), officially issued photo ID (including bus passes) would be a starting point for the list.
Perhaps polling cards should be posted to the individual concerned rather than just being put through letter boxes?
You are just trying to justify your opposition to something that cannot reasonably be opposed.
The number of people without a bank account (that will either come with a bank card or regular statements) has massively declined over the decades.
If you don't have a bank account then it is highly likely that you will still receive any bills in your name via post rather than electronically. If you don't receive any bills, you may well receive benefits paperwork.
How many registered voters do you think there are that don't have some sort of official paperwork? Whether that is from their council, a benefits office, a bank or any other similar body.
I think that many people who live well-organised lives really struggle to imagine what a disorganised life is like - I remember the incredulity which some here expressed when I said in another context that not everyone knows their NI number or can readily lay their hands on it.
Real life: some people live in temporary accommodation all the time - I know one woman who has been staying in different B&Bs for years, and struggles to prove she exists at all in the form now required by letting agents. They move often, sometimes every few months, They don't drive or have a passport. They have as little as possible to do with authorities, not necessarily because they are deliberately avoiding legal duties but because life is just so overwhelming that filling out forms etc. is one hassle too much. Requiring that they bring a polling card OR a form of non-photo ID would be a reasonable step, but not a photo ID.
It's true that people like this often aren't registered to vote, a separate issue. But if they have managed that, really it's unreasonable to require them to produce additional photo ID as well. It's ironical that all these issues would be solved by having universal ID cards, yet there is I think an overlap between people who demand that voters carry photo ID but who oppose ID cards.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is the soft and well-meaning bigotry of low expectations. I do not doubt that there are people in Britain who are not capable of remembering photo ID when they vote, but the number is very, very small. The people of Britain are no more or less capable than those of other nations where providing photo ID is required and accepted without controversy.
We should not compromise the integrity of ballot to make life very marginally easier for a very small group of people like this, however much sympathy we have for them.
The number of people without a bank account (that will either come with a bank card or regular statements) has massively declined over the decades.
If you don't have a bank account then it is highly likely that you will still receive any bills in your name via post rather than electronically. If you don't receive any bills, you may well receive benefits paperwork.
How many registered voters do you think there are that don't have some sort of official paperwork? Whether that is from their council, a benefits office, a bank or any other similar body.
Oh good. A registration state. Everybody must have paperwork, and everybody that doesn't can be safely ignored.
Agreed. (Agreed with your disdain I mean) If there are even a handful of people who do not fit the scheme because of circumstances beyond their control - the homeless for example? - then it is a bad scheme. You cannot disenfranchise people in that way to deal with a 'problem' of dubious severity.
You don't have to disenfranchise anyone. You are scratching around for examples - the homeless isn't a good one, because they already have a problem - no address to be registered to - which a voters ID card would actually solve rather than exacerbate. And the "problem" is always there in potential even if not yet in actuality, like a house with no locks.
Any official correspondence (bank, council, benefits, bill), bank card (or similar), officially issued photo ID (including bus passes) would be a starting point for the list.
Several of these would be trivial to fake, so if these alleged voting fraudsters really exist it's not obvious that they'd stop them.
You are just trying to justify your opposition to something that cannot reasonably be opposed.
The number of people without a bank account (that will either come with a bank card or regular statements) has massively declined over the decades.
If you don't have a bank account then it is highly likely that you will still receive any bills in your name via post rather than electronically. If you don't receive any bills, you may well receive benefits paperwork.
How many registered voters do you think there are that don't have some sort of official paperwork? Whether that is from their council, a benefits office, a bank or any other similar body.
I think that many people who live well-organised lives really struggle to imagine what a disorganised life is like - I remember the incredulity which some here expressed when I said in another context that not everyone knows their NI number or can readily lay their hands on it.
Real life: some people live in temporary accommodation all the time - I know one woman who has been staying in different B&Bs for years, and struggles to prove she exists at all in the form now required by letting agents. They move often, sometimes every few months, They don't drive or have a passport. They have as little as possible to do with authorities, not necessarily because they are deliberately avoiding legal duties but because life is just so overwhelming that filling out forms etc. is one hassle too much. Requiring that they bring a polling card OR a form of non-photo ID would be a reasonable step, but not a photo ID.
It's true that people like this often aren't registered to vote, a separate issue. But if they have managed that, really it's unreasonable to require them to produce additional photo ID as well. It's ironical that all these issues would be solved by having universal ID cards, yet there is I think an overlap between people who demand that voters carry photo ID but who oppose ID cards.
The main oppotion to id cards was not the card, it was the proposed used of flawed biometrics and the plan for widespread dissemination of the data.
The WATO is well worth listening to, once you get past the weather reports. Two interesting items: one on the Italian election and how immigration has become a key issue in that election and another on the growth of the far right in the UK.
In the latter, the spokesman from Hope not Hate was arguing for all the sorts of policies which those who are worried about Islamist terrorism have also been arguing for: controls on social media etc. He also stated that the far right had become globalised but seemed oblivious to the irony of this.
I do not mean to make light of the subject matter. It is obviously very concerning if the far right is developing and becoming a threat. It was just the cognitive dissonance of the spokesman who was saying pretty much the same as Amber Rudd or Home Secretaries before her which struck me. That - and the preceding Italian item. Possibly the rise of the far right or even of centrist parties taking a hard line on immigration is not entirely unconnected with the rise in immigration. Trying to cure symptoms rather than causes is not a tremendously sensible policy.
Any official correspondence (bank, council, benefits, bill), bank card (or similar), officially issued photo ID (including bus passes) would be a starting point for the list.
Several of these would be trivial to fake, so if these alleged voting fraudsters really exist it's not obvious that they'd stop them.
And it is certainly not impossible to fake passports or similar - people do it all the time.
Trying to stop fraud - even where it may not be 100% successful - is better than not doing anything at all.
We have laws against personation because it can happen.
Should we repeal those because only 1 prosecution has been brought in the past year? Of course not.
Building in an additional step is not going to be perfect - but it shows intent.
I dispute your test for "is a problem" (penultimate para of my last post).
There have been things going on for years (Rotherham, Oxfam) which we didn't know about despite the fact that they necessarily generate stacks of evidence, in the form of victims. If we didn't detect them, how can we draw conclusions from the fact that we haven't detected personation which leaves not a trace of evidence? And the fact that it hasn't caused a problem yet, doesn't mean it won't in future. You can get on fine for years without ever locking your front door, until you stop getting away with it.
Which is why I'm in favour of the EC doing studies to see if it is a problem, and if it is, its scale.
Also, given the fact that majorities in most constituencies are in the thousands, how would you (if you were so inclined) arrange personation to swing the result in such a constituency? It seems much easier to do with things like postal voting (and difficult enough then).
Again, in a democracy personation is absolutely bad, independent of its effectiveness.
Studies cost time and money, and in this instance are likely to yield false assurances. Making the system secure, on the other hand, is incredibly easy. You and I are successfully validating our identity at least tens of times a day with tokens and passwords and stuff. For the small minority who don't do that, workarounds are easily imagined. We mustn't make this like wealth tax, which always raises the problem (which in reality isn't one) of little old ladies on basic state pensions living alone in £25m mansions. Say you buy a house which has no front door lock; do you construct a hide and observe the door 24/7 for 6 months to assess the burglary risk, or do you put a lock in on day 1?
"Studies cost time and money, and in this instance are likely to yield false assurances."
That's rubbish.
Again, I ask: how do you see personation working at a level that would swing a constituency with a majority of (say) 400 (hence 200 votes need altering)?
Not following the speech but it strikes me that May, like so many other politicians, has always been good at outlining problems and not so good at actually coming up with solutions for them.
Not following the speech but it strikes May, like so many other politicians, has always been good at outlining problems and not so good at actually coming up with solutions for them.
We are seeing that right now. We have a lot of what we don't want and principles of what we do want.
But she has not (yet, of course) told us what the chuffing hell she DOES want. Exactly.
Brexit for the many, not for the few. Thought that someone else's catchphrase. Listen out for references to means of production then we know we have hit crossover.
Not following the speech but it strikes me that May, like so many other politicians, has always been good at outlining problems and not so good at actually coming up with solutions for them.
Yes, Ed Miliband was the same. Really quite interesting critiques and analysis, really daft solutions.
Brexit for the many, not for the few. Thought that someone else's catchphrase. Listen out for references to means of production then we know we have hit crossover.
I think that many people who live well-organised lives really struggle to imagine what a disorganised life is like - I remember the incredulity which some here expressed when I said in another context that not everyone knows their NI number or can readily lay their hands on it.
Real life: some people live in temporary accommodation all the time - I know one woman who has been staying in different B&Bs for years, and struggles to prove she exists at all in the form now required by letting agents. They move often, sometimes every few months, They don't drive or have a passport. They have as little as possible to do with authorities, not necessarily because they are deliberately avoiding legal duties but because life is just so overwhelming that filling out forms etc. is one hassle too much. Requiring that they bring a polling card OR a form of non-photo ID would be a reasonable step, but not a photo ID.
It's true that people like this often aren't registered to vote, a separate issue. But if they have managed that, really it's unreasonable to require them to produce additional photo ID as well. It's ironical that all these issues would be solved by having universal ID cards, yet there is I think an overlap between people who demand that voters carry photo ID but who oppose ID cards.
With respect your arguments on this are spinning around like a cat chasing its own tail. Obviously nobody who "has as little as possible to do with the authorities" is going to register to vote in the first place and we should not tailor our electoral process to the convenience of such a tiny number of people. These days you need photo ID for things as mundane as picking up a parcel from the post office or buying alcohol, if you look young enough. Why not for voting? My American wife (a liberal Chicago Democrat) was incredulous about how lax voting procedures are the first time she voted here.
Incidentally in much of Africa the back of your hand is stamped with un-removable ink when you vote (it fades off after a week or so). A cheap way of preventing people voting twice.
Not following the speech but it strikes me that May, like so many other politicians, has always been good at outlining problems and not so good at actually coming up with solutions for them.
Yes, Ed Miliband was the same. Really quite interesting critiques and analysis, really daft solutions.
In fairness, I think we can identify problems more easily than we can identify solutions. And good solutions are frequently politically impossible.
PM sounding quite pragmatic so far, she’s clear on where the red lines are, as well as what she desires in terms of agreement and future co-operation with the EU.
She's setting out proposals which are extremely close to what I have been arguing for. Continued associate membership of various agencies. Co-ordination on regulation. Standards to be kept equivalent as a quid pro quo for continued access. Independent Arbitration of disagreements. Door left open on easier access for EU workers/citizens.
The EU say this is cherry picking and is not acceptable. Why not?
Substantially similar means having the ability to vary where it is in our interest. That is surely a form of divergence. Just because you can diverge, it doesn't mean you actually want to or will. It is the ability to diverge that is key. Not a determination to change everything.
She's setting out proposals which are extremely close to what I have been arguing for. Continued associate membership of various agencies. Co-ordination on regulation. Standards to be kept equivalent as a quid pro quo for continued access. Independent Arbitration of disagreements. Door left open on easier access for EU workers/citizens.
The EU say this is cherry picking and is not acceptable. Why not?
Because other members will say "that'll do me too....cheerio."??
Interesting to see how Boris reacts. Last time he shrugged off Theresa's capitulations claiming that, generally, she was sticking to his agenda. Can he do so this time without looking lily livered or a saboteur?
She's setting out proposals which are extremely close to what I have been arguing for. Continued associate membership of various agencies. Co-ordination on regulation. Standards to be kept equivalent as a quid pro quo for continued access. Independent Arbitration of disagreements. Door left open on easier access for EU workers/citizens.
The EU say this is cherry picking and is not acceptable. Why not?
May points out ALL trade deals involve cherry picking.....
She's setting out proposals which are extremely close to what I have been arguing for. Continued associate membership of various agencies. Co-ordination on regulation. Standards to be kept equivalent as a quid pro quo for continued access. Independent Arbitration of disagreements. Door left open on easier access for EU workers/citizens.
The EU say this is cherry picking and is not acceptable. Why not?
Because other members will say "that'll do me too....cheerio."??
Substantially similar means having the ability to vary where it is in our interest. That is surely a form of divergence. Just because you can diverge, it doesn't mean you actually want to or will. It is the ability to diverge that is key. Not a determination to change everything.
associate membership of necessary agencies please and 'substantially similar' regulation and a customs 'arrangement' to achieve frictionless trade - some new lines to read between? does seem to be some detail
I think May is trying to call the Brexiteers’ bluff. We will have the theoretical ability to diverge, but there will be a cost to doing so. In other words, we will stay aligned. Clever!
Comments
There have been things going on for years (Rotherham, Oxfam) which we didn't know about despite the fact that they necessarily generate stacks of evidence, in the form of victims. If we didn't detect them, how can we draw conclusions from the fact that we haven't detected personation which leaves not a trace of evidence? And the fact that it hasn't caused a problem yet, doesn't mean it won't in future. You can get on fine for years without ever locking your front door, until you stop getting away with it.
You are just trying to justify your opposition to something that cannot reasonably be opposed.
The number of people without a bank account (that will either come with a bank card or regular statements) has massively declined over the decades.
If you don't have a bank account then it is highly likely that you will still receive any bills in your name via post rather than electronically. If you don't receive any bills, you may well receive benefits paperwork.
How many registered voters do you think there are that don't have some sort of official paperwork? Whether that is from their council, a benefits office, a bank or any other similar body.
Look to yourself before getting on your high horse.
Also, given the fact that majorities in most constituencies are in the thousands, how would you (if you were so inclined) arrange personation to swing the result in such a constituency? It seems much easier to do with things like postal voting (and difficult enough then).
So in practice it is essential if you want to do a Heap of things the vast majority of people will want to do. And those that don't have one will end up needing one eventually.
.
Just make it voluntary and then make it impossible to function over time without one.
"...National Express are not currently operating any services to or from South Wales, Bristol, Bath, Bournemouth, Southampton, Devon & Cornwall. We have resumed minimal services to and from Glasgow, however all other Scotland stops remain inaccessible. We have also suspended services between Manchester and Leeds..."
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-03-02/2002-president-bush-imposed-30-steel-tariffs-what-happened-next
The increase of the Kafkaesque CIFAS markers hasn't helped either.
Edit - Your point about the number of people without a bank account declining is wrong, it was 1 million in 2010 and 1.7m in 2015.
Perhaps you should recolour them neon pink or something so we all know who the offenders are?
In reality you have no idea who has money or otherwise and how people earn a living
Even those who state on here their profession / income might not necessarily be telling the truth
Real life: some people live in temporary accommodation all the time - I know one woman who has been staying in different B&Bs for years, and struggles to prove she exists at all in the form now required by letting agents. They move often, sometimes every few months, They don't drive or have a passport. They have as little as possible to do with authorities, not necessarily because they are deliberately avoiding legal duties but because life is just so overwhelming that filling out forms etc. is one hassle too much. Requiring that they bring a polling card OR a form of non-photo ID would be a reasonable step, but not a photo ID.
It's true that people like this often aren't registered to vote, a separate issue. But if they have managed that, really it's unreasonable to require them to produce additional photo ID as well. It's ironical that all these issues would be solved by having universal ID cards, yet there is I think an overlap between people who demand that voters carry photo ID but who oppose ID cards.
http://www.reuters.tv/l/NwH/2018/03/02/british-prime-minister-theresa-may-sets-out-brexit-stance
Studies cost time and money, and in this instance are likely to yield false assurances. Making the system secure, on the other hand, is incredibly easy. You and I are successfully validating our identity at least tens of times a day with tokens and passwords and stuff. For the small minority who don't do that, workarounds are easily imagined. We mustn't make this like wealth tax, which always raises the problem (which in reality isn't one) of little old ladies on basic state pensions living alone in £25m mansions. Say you buy a house which has no front door lock; do you construct a hide and observe the door 24/7 for 6 months to assess the burglary risk, or do you put a lock in on day 1?
Perth and North Perthshire – 21 votes
Newcastle-under-Lyme – 30 votes
Southampton Itchen – 31 votes
Richmond – 45 votes
Crewe & Nantwich – 48 votes
Glasgow East – 75 votes
Arfon – 92 votes
It would be very easy to come up with a scheme to manipulate the results in constituency where the majority is so slim.
I don't want the validity of any election to be questioned because our basic systems were so easy to be exploited.
Postal voting needs urgent reform.
Asking people to provide some basic form of ID in the polling station is so unreasonable as to make it impossible to understand why people are raising any concerns. Particularly when a significant part of the UK has been using voter ID for more than 30 years without any known problems with regards to suppressing voters as it being alleged would happen in the rest of the UK.
Given some of the tiny seat majorities in 2017, and the potential for knife-edge votes from those elected MPs in this Parliament, it behoves all concerned to show that no seats were settled by fraud.
I would just make the observation that having a strict requirement to obtain a photo ID is most likely to impact on the very elederly - those who vote disprportionately Tory. And those who are resident in the UK from EU countries who are eligible to vote in locals are disproportionately likely to already have photo ID, to have got here in the frst place.
My bigger worry on voting is the concern around postal votes for south Asian women being collected up before they ever get to see them, let alone get a chance to mark the ballot paprs themselves.
But might it be an idea to check we actually have a problem before we pay to enforce ID cards on millions of people to 'solve' the problem?
Or are you seriously suggesting we do away with that?
Agree about PV, but it'd be good to see how the recent changes have affected things.
The fact Labour also got 20% of UKIP voters and also squeezed the LD, SNP and Green votes and saw their vote go up even more to 40%, the highest Labour voteshare since 2001, does not change that.
In any case we were examining the 2% of 2017 Tory voters who now say they would vote UKIP in the polls
I think it is reasonable to have a wide range of ID options available (and any move to only accepting photo ID would need at least a 5-10 year lead time)
Any official correspondence (bank, council, benefits, bill), bank card (or similar), officially issued photo ID (including bus passes) would be a starting point for the list.
Perhaps polling cards should be posted to the individual concerned rather than just being put through letter boxes?
We should not compromise the integrity of ballot to make life very marginally easier for a very small group of people like this, however much sympathy we have for them.
Edit: panic over, user error.
offered with no comment
Edit. AB is at the crease against Australia. Just saying.
In the latter, the spokesman from Hope not Hate was arguing for all the sorts of policies which those who are worried about Islamist terrorism have also been arguing for: controls on social media etc. He also stated that the far right had become globalised but seemed oblivious to the irony of this.
I do not mean to make light of the subject matter. It is obviously very concerning if the far right is developing and becoming a threat. It was just the cognitive dissonance of the spokesman who was saying pretty much the same as Amber Rudd or Home Secretaries before her which struck me. That - and the preceding Italian item. Possibly the rise of the far right or even of centrist parties taking a hard line on immigration is not entirely unconnected with the rise in immigration. Trying to cure symptoms rather than causes is not a tremendously sensible policy.
Trying to stop fraud - even where it may not be 100% successful - is better than not doing anything at all.
We have laws against personation because it can happen.
Should we repeal those because only 1 prosecution has been brought in the past year? Of course not.
Building in an additional step is not going to be perfect - but it shows intent.
That's rubbish.
Again, I ask: how do you see personation working at a level that would swing a constituency with a majority of (say) 400 (hence 200 votes need altering)?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7i4z3HtE_U
One for the desert island.
Hopefully the rest is OK.
But she has not (yet, of course) told us what the chuffing hell she DOES want. Exactly.
@hugorifkind: @PCollinsTimes When she says "no existing 3rd party solution will do" it's pretty clear that the best idea is not to become a 3rd party.
@PCollinsTimes: @hugorifkind Quite. This is a good speech for the penultimate week of the Remain campaign.
@hugorifkind: So far, she's doing a really good job of explaining why leaving the EU is a really bad idea.
More inclusive than Labour......
Incidentally in much of Africa the back of your hand is stamped with un-removable ink when you vote (it fades off after a week or so). A cheap way of preventing people voting twice.
Beaten by a bus.
:-)
https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/969574723624624128
https://twitter.com/smashmorePH/status/969574720793468928
The EU say this is cherry picking and is not acceptable. Why not?
https://twitter.com/Freeman_George/status/969574916076040193
Asking for a friend ....