Law Change will require voters to show photo ID

[Cloud Strife]

The concept is pretty anathema with big sections of society. There’s quite a bit of political resistance, which is surprising given our general population wasn’t ever subject to an oppressive and invasive state which used information to suppress our activities.

Which is really ridiculous, given that issues in the UK like identity theft are barely an issue here.

 

[AlterEgo]

Which is really ridiculous, given that issues in the UK like identity theft are barely an issue here.

A lot of ideas live rent free in the political imaginations of British people. You can point out as often as you like that populations with better reasons to distrust an idea actually think they’re great until you’re blue in the face.

 

[najaB]

The concept is pretty anathema with big sections of society. There’s quite a bit of political resistance, which is surprising given our general population wasn’t ever subject to an oppressive and invasive state which used information to suppress our activities.

Is it actually an issue with many people, or are they being told that it's something that they should take an issue with?

 

[Gloster]

Is it actually an issue with many people, or are they being told that it's something that they should take an issue with?

I would think it is mostly the latter, but I know people who’s attitude is that ID cards are a foreign thing and we don’t want any of their nasty ideas. And you have those who claim that it is a freeborn Englishman’s (*) right laid down in Magna Carta not to have to carry proof of identity: they will prove it by pulling out their smart phone full of tracking devices to show you some garbled gibberish from a nutter.

* - Other UK nationalities are available, but are less commonly used.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would think it is mostly the latter, but I know people who’s attitude is that ID cards are a foreign thing and we don’t want any of their nasty ideas. And you have those who claim that it is a freeborn Englishman’s (*) right laid down in Magna Carta not to have to carry proof of identity: they will prove it by pulling out their smart phone full of tracking devices to show you some garbled gibberish from a nutter.

* - Other UK nationalities are available, but are less commonly used.

Of course compulsory carry (which I most strongly oppose) is rather different from it needing to be used in certain official circumstances.

 

[najaB]

Of course compulsory carry (which I most strongly oppose) is rather different from it needing to be used in certain official circumstances.

What you will find, having grown up in a country which has universal ID without mandatory carry, is that 95% of people carry it with them pretty much all the time anyway.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What you will find, having grown up in a country which has universal ID without mandatory carry, is that 95% of people carry it with them pretty much all the time anyway.

And I carry my photo driving licence near enough all the time too.

However, I do NOT want the UK to have a "papers please" culture, i.e. where Police ask for ID in the street at the slightest thing. That's a fundamental change to the relationship between state and citizen.

I also don't want it to be illegal to go out for a run (say) carrying nothing at all bar my house key in the small key pocket in my running shorts.

 

[Cloud Strife]

What you will find, having grown up in a country which has universal ID without mandatory carry, is that 95% of people carry it with them pretty much all the time anyway.

Well, Poland is a good example. You have to have an ID card, but it's not mandatory to carry it. The police can theoretically detain you for not having it, but in practice, it doesn't happen unless you're doing something that the government considers to be against them. As I mentioned before, now it's just enough to give them your personal identity number, and every police car is equipped with a computer that will allow them to check your photo and identity.

But as you say, I carry it most of the time anyway. It's no big deal, and I've never been stopped randomly by the police, unlike in the UK.

Compulsory carry is an awful idea, but there's no harm in mandatory ID cards if they're easily obtained. Part of the problem with the last UK attempt at implementing them was that the application process was ridiculous and expensive.

 

[Annetts key]

Compulsory carry is an awful idea, but there's no harm in mandatory ID cards if they're easily obtained. Part of the problem with the last UK attempt at implementing them was that the application process was ridiculous and expensive.

I hope people have noticed that the political party in the U.K. that does not like excessive regulation, excessive red tape or expensive systems is the very same political party that is in favour of mandatory identification for elections.

And, yes, it introduces and implements complex, ridiculous and expensive application processes and systems…

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well, Poland is a good example. You have to have an ID card, but it's not mandatory to carry it. The police can theoretically detain you for not having it, but in practice, it doesn't happen unless you're doing something that the government considers to be against them.

That is compulsory carry. And that is the exact change in relationship I was thinking of there. Papers please!

I fear states simply can't resist...

 

[Lucan]

I do NOT want the UK to have a "papers please" culture, i.e. where Police ask for ID in the street at the slightest thing.

I favour ID cards precisely in order to eliminate the paper chasing that we currently have.

In order to do anything like open a bank account or enrol on a course, we currently have to provide a bunch of paperwork like utility bills, season tickets, and anything else according to the whim of the petty official in control of the situation (a driving licence alone is not usually enough). Two years ago I had to give up trying to open a Post Office savings account because I could not satisfy them with my wad of utility bills and driving licence; this was even after two extra trips home for more even paperwork, and a trip to a different Post Office*. That's what I call a "papers please" culture.

My sister-in-law, a non-driver, had to obtain an otherwise pointless provisional driving licence in order to open a bank account after her husband died. Similarly, a few years ago Mrs L found she was unable to open any bank account because all utility bills were in my name; for this reason I closed a couple of utility accounts and she opened accounts with them instead, just so she could show the bank some utility bills.

This situation is bonkers. This existing paper chase could be eliminated by having a ID card which banks etc are legally required to recognise as sufficient identity. I notice that most people who oppose ID cards have a driving licence or passport which has the same downsides that they seem to perceive in ID cards, yet they accept them. In one breath they claim that ID cards are intruding on their privacy, and in the next breath they claim that everybody except people who don't matter has a passport and driving licence anyway.

Police stopping you in the street at the slightest thing is an entirely separate issue.

* The issue is that the road I live in does not have a name.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This situation is bonkers. This existing paper chase could be eliminated by having a ID card which banks etc are legally required to recognise as sufficient identity. I notice that most people who oppose ID cards have a driving licence or passport which has the same downsides that they seem to perceive in ID cards, yet they accept them. In one breath they claim that ID cards are intruding on their privacy, and in the next breath they claim that everybody except people who don't matter has a passport and driving licence anyway.

I'm pro ID cards in the form of "non-driving driving licences" with no extra baggage*. I'm not pro any extra powers for Police to request proof of identity, indeed I would want them to come with specific legislation preventing them from doing that. Germany has some pretty hefty legislation on how they can be used**, so that'd be somewhere to look, though we may want more than that.

Before anyone says "but if you've got nothing to hide", it's quite clear from recent news that some Police Forces have been rather abusing certain powers, and as such giving them extra ones to abuse*** is not the right thing to do.

* Were we to rejoin the EU I'd support the travel features being added, though.
** e.g. I believe DB can't by law use them to verify e-tickets despite this making more than a bit of sense!
*** No doubt people of colour (I think that's the correct term at the moment) would find themselves needing to prove ID at every street corner

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

What is the situation appertaining to voting in the local elections on 5th May?

 

[Domh245]

What is the situation appertaining to voting in the local elections on 5th May?

I believe "as you were" with no requirement for ID, just turn up & state name/address as previously - the bill hasn't received royal assent yet, and I believe the pilot schemes were time limited as well

 

[jfollows]

What is the situation appertaining to voting in the local elections on 5th May?

Even when the bill is enacted and becomes law, Schedule 61 "Commencement" states (https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-02/0138/210138.pdf)

61 Commencement

(1) Subject to subsection (3), the provisions of this Act come into force on such day as the Minister may by regulations made by statutory instrument appoint.

(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may appoint different days for different purposes or areas.

(3) This Part comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed.

(4) The Minister may by regulations made by statutory instrument make transitional, transitory or saving provision in connection with the coming into force of any provision of this Act.

(5) Regulations under subsection (4) may make different provision for different purposes or areas.

In other words, the provisions only apply after some future point when the statutory instrument to "turn them on" is made. They have no effect on the May local elections because this statutory instrument won't be made before then (or, even if it is, the statutory instrument will name a later date for commencement).
EDIT Note, therefore, that the only part of this bill which comes into force when the act is passed is this section, "Commencement". This paves the way for the statutory instrument to enable the rest of the Act at a later date.

==================
Unsurprisingly, the first action by the government back in the House of Commons is to "disagree" with the amendment passed in the House of Lords which included a big long list of additional acceptable forms of identification (see post #388).
EDIT 16:53 Lords amendment now rejected by the Commons as expected. 306-213. William Wragg (Conservative, Hazel Grove) voted against the rejection, in other words in favour of the Lords amendment.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

I favour ID cards precisely in order to eliminate the paper chasing that we currently have.

In order to do anything like open a bank account or enrol on a course, we currently have to provide a bunch of paperwork like utility bills, season tickets, and anything else according to the whim of the petty official in control of the situation (a driving licence alone is not usually enough). Two years ago I had to give up trying to open a Post Office savings account because I could not satisfy them with my wad of utility bills and driving licence; this was even after two extra trips home for more even paperwork, and a trip to a different Post Office*. That's what I call a "papers please" culture.

My sister-in-law, a non-driver, had to obtain an otherwise pointless provisional driving licence in order to open a bank account after her husband died. Similarly, a few years ago Mrs L found she was unable to open any bank account because all utility bills were in my name; for this reason I closed a couple of utility accounts and she opened accounts with them instead, just so she could show the bank some utility bills.

This situation is bonkers. This existing paper chase could be eliminated by having a ID card which banks etc are legally required to recognise as sufficient identity. I notice that most people who oppose ID cards have a driving licence or passport which has the same downsides that they seem to perceive in ID cards, yet they accept them. In one breath they claim that ID cards are intruding on their privacy, and in the next breath they claim that everybody except people who don't matter has a passport and driving licence anyway.

Police stopping you in the street at the slightest thing is an entirely separate issue.

* The issue is that the road I live in does not have a name.

Better still, petty officials could stop their bonkers behaviour and accept 'lower' forms of proof, which have served perfectly adequately for decades, nay hundreds of years for the vast majority of people and transactions. As I have said previously (and others have) I have no need to prove my identity to be sent to prison, I just stand up in court and confirm my name. Do I have to provide proof of ID for jury service? For a Power of Attorney, I can literally put an 'x' in the box, presumably because the power needs to be available to those who are mentally competent but illiterate to act on behalf of those who are literate but mentally incompetent.

The officials will claim 'money laundering regulations', 'protecting customers' and such like. It is in reality a back covering exercise. The official is relying on someone else having done the checks. A passport or driving licence is accepted because it is felt that 'most' people have one so it is not a burden to produce one on demand. When driving and foreign travel was much less common, no-one would have dreamt upon insisting on a person producing them, because it would have resulted in noticeable lost business. Nowadays for those that don't, meh, they can open an account elsewhere, not bothered.

In reality a passport or a driving licence is not really much proof of anything - if you are really determined to abuse the system it can, and is, done. The old days where a very limited number of high end professionals could countersign your passport photo are long gone. Presumably in part because of the proportion of the population now going abroad regularly would overwhelm those few high end professionals.

 

[jfollows]

EDIT 16:53 Lords amendment now rejected by the Commons as expected. 306-213. William Wragg (Conservative, Hazel Grove) voted against the rejection, in other words in favour of the Lords amendment.

Later the Lords reluctantly went along with this:

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 86, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 86A.
86A: Because the Commons consider the requirement to provide adequate photographic identification to be the most effective means of securing the integrity of the electoral system.

 

[Busaholic]

Later the Lords reluctantly went along with this:

This might well turn round and bite the Tories on the bum when elderly and/or disabled Tory voters get refused a ballot paper at the polling station on the day. I have the required identity, and shall vote in person (for someone who's not standing for the Conservative Party) but will make it clear to the official (who may well be known to me) that I'm only producing my driving licence in order that I can exercise my democratic right, my physical disability meaning it will take me a full five minutes to get my wallet out, do the necessary, then return it safely to my pocket.

 

[jfollows]

The bill will now become law: (https://www.theguardian.com/politic...gg-ukraine-visas-latest-updates-politics-live)

Parliament to prorogue after peers give up fighting government on elections bill and nationality and borders bill​

Parliament is proroguing today because yesterday the House of Lords gave up fighting for changes to two bills passed by the Commons – the elections bill and the nationality and borders bill. The bills were among several subject to parliamentary “ping pong” – last-minute haggling between the Commons and the Lords - but, as usual, the Lords eventually conceded to the elected chamber.

This is from the PA Media report on the elections bill last night.

The way has been paved to end the current parliamentary session after the last major piece of legislation cleared the House of Lords.
Peers backed down from continuing their stand-off with the Tory-dominated Commons over the elections bill, rejecting making further changes which would have required the legislation being sent back to MPs for consideration.
The elections bill also contained contentious reforms, including the introduction of photo ID for voters, which it is feared could see a significant number of people turned away from polling stations, and provisions that critics warn threaten the independence of the Electoral Commission.
At the same time, it will scrap a 15-year limit on British citizens living overseas being able to vote from abroad.
Raising his concerns, Liberal Democrat peer Lord Wallace of Saltaire said: “One of the many adverse affects of this bill is that it makes it much easier, and without barriers, for overseas citizens to vote, but makes it more difficult for domestic citizens to vote. That’s very odd, and not entirely democratic, undesirable.”
Labour frontbencher Lady Hayman said: “The government has simply got it wrong on requiring voter ID to be presented at polling stations. We are disappointed and unhappy that there has been absolutely no movement whatsoever from the Government on this. There is clear concern right across this House about the undermining of the independence of the Electoral Commission.”

Out of interest, that’s >14 months since the first post here.

 

[JamesT]

The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ear-challenge-uk-voter-id-trial-2019-election) reports that the Supreme Court will hear a case which challenges the government's decision to hold voter ID trials in 2019. The argument made is that "hundreds of individuals were denied their vote in the 2019 local elections because of voter ID pilots, that should have been only as a result of an act of parliament following proper scrutiny". So the challenge is to the 2019 trials, but the case has taken until now to reach the Supreme Court. There is no date set yet for the Supreme Court hearing and, presumably, even if the court finds against the government this would not prevent parliament from legislating for voter ID in future anyway.

The Supreme Court have recently decided that the voter id trials were legal - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...upreme-court-conservative-party-b2066453.html
Though as:

The Supreme Court said the appeal did not concern “the merits” of controversial voter ID schemes but rather the legality of the trials.

That still leaves open the possibility of people trying to take judicial action against the legislation that has just been passed.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

An ENCTS pass has a photographic image and the name of the pass holder. What is the validity of such a pass in relation to the discussion on this particular thread?

 

[Bletchleyite]

An ENCTS pass has a photographic image and the name of the pass holder. What is the validity of such a pass in relation to the discussion on this particular thread?

I believe an ENCTS pass (or Scottish/Welsh version) is an acceptable document.

 

[GusB]

We already have various proof of age schemes for young people. All that's really needed is to make these schemes officially acceptable as "proper ID"

Obtaining a bank account, especially a online one, is a pain in the backside if you have neither passport nor driving licence. Where a high street bank will have a list of acceptable forms of ID, it's not consistent across all banks.

The most ludicrous situation I came across was when I had to apply for a personal alcohol licence. I was required to have ID, and have my photographs certified by a suitable person of professional standing. I was in my 30s at the time and was way past being challenged for ID when buying alcohol, but had I looked younger, I would have been unable to use the document which authorised me to supervise the sale of alcohol (and train others in the then-new licensing laws) in order to prove my age when buying it!

 

[jfollows]

An ENCTS pass has a photographic image and the name of the pass holder. What is the validity of such a pass in relation to the discussion on this particular thread?

An ENCTS pass is included as a "specified document" (h): (https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/44762/documents/1267)
(Schedule 1)

In this rule a “specified document”, except in the case of a voter with an anonymous entry in the register of electors (as to which see paragraph (1K)), means any of the following documents (in whatever form issued to the holder) that contain a photograph of the holder—

(a) a United Kingdom passport (see paragraph (1I));

(b) a passport issued by an EEA state or a Commonwealth country;

(c) a licence to drive a motor vehicle granted under—

(i) Part 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, or

(ii) the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (SI 1981/154 (N.I. 1));

(d) a driving licence issued by any of the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man or an EEA state;

(e) a biometric immigration document issued in accordance with regulations under section 5 of the UK Borders Act 2007;

(f) an identity card bearing the Proof of Age Standards Scheme hologram (a PASS card);

(g) a Ministry of Defence Form 90 (Defence Identity Card);

(h) a relevant concessionary travel pass (see paragraph (1J));

(i) a badge of a form prescribed under section 21 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 or section 14 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 (blue badge scheme);

(j) an electoral identity document issued under section 13BD (electoral identity document: Great Britain);

(k) an electoral identity card issued under section 13C (electoral identity card: Northern Ireland);

(l) a national identity card issued by an EEA state.

 

[JamesT]

I believe an ENCTS pass (or Scottish/Welsh version) is an acceptable document.

https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/46054/documents/1703 is a copy of the bill from March. I can't find a newer version that incorporates changes rather than just listing changes. However I think the various amendments that tried to change the acceptable list were knocked back so it should be correct.

I can't get the list to copy and paste sanely here, but it starts on page 82 of the document (86 in my PDF reader) and does include older/disabled bus passes issued by the various governments of the UK.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Thanks for the above. There are three of my immediate neighbours in their 80s who no longer drive owing to certain medical conditions and all of them told me that they sent their driving licence back to the DVLA. None of them are holders of a currently valid passport, stating that they only ever holiday in Britain.

 

[najaB]

Thanks for the above. There are three of my immediate neighbours in their 80s who no longer drive owing to certain medical conditions and all of them told me that they sent their driving licence back to the DVLA. None of them are holders of a currently valid passport, stating that they only ever holiday in Britain.

If in doubt, tell them to register to vote by mail for which there is no requirement to provide any form of ID.

 

[Busaholic]

If in doubt, tell them to register to vote by mail for which there is no requirement to provide any form of ID.

Which shows the lies and hypocrisy surrounding this new law.

 

[jfollows]

Polly Toynbee was never going to write in favour of voter ID, but I don't disagree with her (https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ed-political-system-electoral-reform#comments):

Today’s elections are the last before the Tories vandalise our democratic rights

Polly Toynbee

The elections bill will deter non-Tory supporters from voting and scrap any oversight. Reform is needed more than ever before

Thu 5 May 2022 09.06 BST

Today is the last time you will go to the polls before the government’s shameful and shameless new elections bill becomes law. It was squeezed through parliament late at night last week in the final “wash-up” of bad bills before the end of the session.

The bill’s Trumpish voter suppression is designed to deter poor and young people from voting. Its passing also makes these the last elections to be monitored and scrutinised by a genuinely independent Electoral Commission. This habitually timid outfit tried to stand up for itself: “The independence of the Electoral Commission is vital to the functioning of a healthy democracy,” it said. But, as of now, Boris Johnson and his allies will set their own terms for the commission, including its scrutiny of finance.

Every voter will need a photo ID from now on, so 7.5% of voters, or 3.5 million people, without a driving licence or a passport will have to be determined enough to trek to their local council office, have their photo taken and fill out an application with a counter-signature. It’s worth noting that the DVLA and the Passport Office are in crisis: just try booking an urgent passport slot. Anyone looking at our voting patterns would worry about too few people turning out, not people voting twice. The risk of “personation” – cheating on identity – is minuscule: in 2017 there was one conviction, in 2018 none at all. In a grossly unfair and undemocratic electoral system, the probity and honesty of its operation is the one aspect to be proud of.

The Tory-led public administration and constitutional affairs committeeproduced a devastating condemnation of the bill. They estimated 2.3% of voters would be deterred from voting, or 1.1 million people, who would probably be those on low incomes, from ethnic minorities and with disabilities. They warned that too much arbitrary discretion would be left to polling station staff to accept or reject ID, causing queues and rows.

If you doubt this is a conspiracy to stop non-Tories voting, look at the only ID that is acceptable beyond passports and driving licences: pensioners will be allowed to use the older person’s bus pass, Oyster 60+ or Senior 60+ SmartPass – while young people will be barred from using their railcards. The government rejected Lord Willetts’ amendment 86 trying to include a wide range of documents for all ages. Older people are the main users of postal votes – which won’t require ID. All this is surely not unconnected with the Tories’ 47-point lead among the over-65s, and Labour’s 43-point lead among under 25s as of 2019.

The Spectator has kindly assembled no fewer than 11 writings and sayings by Johnson excoriating ID cards, starting with, “I loathe the idea on principle. I never want to be commanded, by any emanation of the British state, to produce evidence of my identity … I will take that card out of my wallet and physically eat it.” But now ID cards serve his only remaining political purpose: to get re-elected.

The bill’s other abomination concerns the relatively new mayoral and police and crime commissioner elections: it sweeps away the present second-preference system in favour of the unfairest of all, the antique first past the post (FPTP). Why? Because Tories are more likely to win under FPTP. There are more anti-Tory progressive voters, who transfer their second preferences to another progressive party, but rarely to a Tory.

As Neal Lawson, who advocates a progressive alliance, wrote eloquently this week, a majority-progressive vote is usually disastrously divided. Today, in 82% of elections there will be at least two progressive candidates splitting their vote, standing against just one Conservative, according to Jon Narcross of the Electoral Reform Society. Proportional representation (PR) would, to borrow a phrase, “level up” votes, so they don’t pile up wasted. PR now gets strong public support, according to YouGov, with 44% in favour, and only 27% for first past the post.

The last week, with seven front pages of the Mail and others piling in, trying to make Keir Starmer’s beer and curry on the campaign trail as bad as Downing Street’s 12 parties is just another grim reminder of the monstrous heft of the rightwing press, used unscrupulously to save its multimillionaire owners from the perils of Labour in power.

Labour, if it becomes the biggest party at the next general election, must lead the way to electoral reform. Labour is highly unlikely to win alone, so this time the Liberal Democrats and all the other parties must demand PR immediately, as its first act or refuse any cooperation on anything else. There is no need for a referendum, just do it. Referendums are toxic politics – and the Tories can hardly complain when they have gerrymandered, prorogued and suppressed opposing votes, their mendacious press claque distorting any fair voice, with total disregard for what is now a broken constitution. Johnson has killed off Peter Hennessy’s theory of a “good chaps” constitution, one in which practitioners hold dear not just the rules themselves but also their spirit.

So what should progressive “good chaps”, be they male or female, do at the close of a Johnson era? That much is clear. They should feel free to introduce a voting system that will stop any corrupt party with a minority of votes ever governing alone again with dictatorial powers.

 

[cornishjohn]

Polly Toynbee

Every voter will need a photo ID from now on, so 7.5% of voters, or 3.5 million people, without a driving licence or a passport will have to be determined enough to trek to their local council office, have their photo taken and fill out an application with a counter-signature. It’s worth noting that the DVLA and the Passport Office are in crisis: just try booking an urgent passport slot. Anyone looking at our voting patterns would worry about too few people turning out, not people voting twice. The risk of “personation” – cheating on identity – is minuscule: in 2017 there was one conviction, in 2018 none at all. In a grossly unfair and undemocratic electoral system, the probity and honesty of its operation is the one aspect to be proud of.
<snip>
If you doubt this is a conspiracy to stop non-Tories voting, look at the only ID that is acceptable beyond passports and driving licences: pensioners will be allowed to use the older person’s bus pass, Oyster 60+ or Senior 60+ SmartPass – while young people will be barred from using their railcards. The government rejected Lord Willetts’ amendment 86 trying to include a wide range of documents for all ages. Older people are the main users of postal votes – which won’t require ID. All this is surely not unconnected with the Tories’ 47-point lead among the over-65s, and Labour’s 43-point lead among under 25s as of 2019.

Well in Scotland every teenager has a government issue ID card from actually something like the age of 10 or so (the Young Scot card), so its not Scottish teenagers without a drivers licence that are being stopped from voting. And it is valid up to the age of 26, which is quite long enough to think about your next form of ID. I dont know any scots teenager not used to carrying their card as without it they are unlikely to get their bus to school or their school lunches paid for.

I don't quite see why a railcard should be of sufficient status to prove ID as there is no proper ID checking at issue that I recall, certainly not at the passport countersigning level.

I hope yesterday you all voted early and voted often.