Law Change will require voters to show photo ID

[Cambus731]

I normally have no time for 'conspiracy theories' but the Conservatives know damn well that the sort of people that may struggle to have or obtain photo ID are unlikely to vote Tory. They would never admit it, but that is clearly a major contributory factor to this. This is a very cynical move by them and it stinks.

 

[RT4038]

Are there many countries in the world nowadays that don't require some kind of photo ID to vote?

 

[DarloRich]

Of course it is proposed, you have to start somewhere.

Your emphasis suggests what? That you think it will not happen? A bit like we will never meekly accept having a wide range of our 'freedoms' and 'rights' removed without proper parliamentary scrutiny, with perhaps only a few hours notice (lockdown and Eid, Christmas overnight stays etc.). Like meeting our friends, or going shopping, or having a pint in the pub.

Perhaps we should just leave it all to the adults to decide, to not have a discussion of our own?

Yawn. Shall we try and cut out the wibble and hyperbole?

This suggestion ( it isnt even an "official" proposal) has not been set out in detial, listed in the Queens Speech, presented to parliament, scrutinised, debated, alterted or passed into law. It is nothing but a newspaper report designed to play to the gallery ( see alleged free speech issues, history, statues etc)

It is not comparabile to the introduction of lock down restricitons and to suggest a similarity is silly.

This is, so far, is the standard tory kite flying excercise. Leak something to the press, see how the public take it then decide what to do.

My personal view that this is not designed to fix any voter fraud or a cynical ploy to disenfranchise anyone as MOST people have the required documentation. It is just a kite. The bigger question is what is it deflecting attention from

 

[jfollows]

I normally have no time for 'conspiracy theories' but the Conservatives know damn well that the sort of people that may struggle to have or obtain photo ID are unlikely to vote Tory. They would never admit it, but that is clearly a major contributory factor to this. This is a very cynical move by them and it stinks.

I agree, but I don't doubt it will feature in the Queen's Speech "to tackle electoral fraud and protect our democracy", indeed it already featured in the 2019 Queen's Speech as "My Government will take steps to protect the integrity of democracy and the electoral system in the United Kingdom." (https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/queens-speech-2019) ... so that's alright then???? Not really!

EDIT In October 2019 they went on to explain "We will protect the integrity of our democracy and elections, tackling electoral fraud through the introduction of voter ID and banning postal vote harvesting." but this was the Queen's Speech which also promised we'd leave the EU on 31 October (https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...u/queens-speech-2019-what-it-means-for-you--3).

 

[DelW]

This suggestion ( it isnt even an "official" proposal) has not been set out in detial, listed in the Queens Speech, presented to parliament, scrutinised, debated, alterted or passed into law. It is nothing but a newspaper report designed to play to the gallery ( see alleged free speech issues, history, statues etc)

That may be so, but at present, this government can introduce a lot of contentious regulations by ministerial decree under Covid emergency powers. Many of these measures aren't an emergency, but they've grown too lazy, or possibly arrogant, to go through the work of getting them passed by Parliament.

So I think we do have to be wary of what might be introduced by a ministerial signature without proper parliamentary debate.

 

[jfollows]

This suggestion ( it isnt even an "official" proposal) has not been set out in detial, listed in the Queens Speech, presented to parliament, scrutinised, debated, alterted or passed into law. It is nothing but a newspaper report designed to play to the gallery ( see alleged free speech issues, history, statues etc)

As I posted later on ( #34 ), it was in the last Queen's Speech, which was a bit of a charade under the circumstances, and it's pretty certain that it will be in the next Queen's Speech in October 2021, after which it will get to go through all the stages you list. I think it's a pretty accurate newspaper report.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

If a similar, free, card is offered across the rest of the UK (as seems to be the plan) then who's going to be excluded?

Technically, if free ID was made available to those who require it, then it wouldn't absolutely disenfranchise anyone, but it still makes it significantly harder for people without ID (mainly of course, poorer people) to vote: You'd essentially have two groups. The majority of the population for whom voting in person is easy - you merely need to turn up at the polling station on the day, with no advanced preparation required; and a minority who can only vote in person if they make the effort - presumably, some weeks in advance of the election - to do whatever is required to secure the ID. It's a pretty safe bet that won't be trivial to do, since as a minimum it'll require them to fill in a form and send a suitable passport-style photo along with some kind of proof of who they are to some agency.

It can't be good for democracy if the system makes it trivially easy for some people to vote, but more difficult for certain other groups of people to vote. Obviously that will depress turnout amongst whichever groups have higher barriers in the way of voting, and result in that group being less represented.

 

[jfollows]

It's a pretty safe bet that won't be trivial to do, since as a minimum it'll require them to fill in a form and send a suitable passport-style photo along with some kind of proof of who they are to some agency.

It won't therefore be cost-free, even if the "card" itself is free, because of the cost of obtaining the photograph and the cost of travelling to somewhere to obtain the completed card, plus the perceived cost of the time and effort involved. These will be enough to dissuade a significant number of people from voting, people who would otherwise have voted without the "voter ID" requirement.

 

[DarloRich]

As I posted later on ( #34 ), it was in the last Queen's Speech, which was a bit of a charade under the circumstances, and it's pretty certain that it will be in the next Queen's Speech in October 2021, after which it will get to go through all the stages you list. I think it's a pretty accurate newspaper report.

So? As you point out it has already been in the Queens Speech yet hasnt made it into law. Inclusion simply means it forms part of the governemnts proposed legislative agenda. Time may not be found to introduce any such legisltaion contained therein.

No propsal has been made and no detail announced. Until it is this is just kite flying

 

[Domh245]

So? As you point out it has already been in the Queens Speech yet hasnt made it into law.

There's been some rather more pressing issues (at least for the government) since then

It may well be kite flying, but it's quite clearly something the government want to "get done" as they've been banging on about it for long enough

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I think we need to look at voting in person and postal votes separately.

I don't think we know if there is much voting in person fraud - presumably it will only show up if the genuine person turns up and finds that someone else has already used their name to vote. There could be widespread fraud: a sharper fraudster could identify people who may have moved away, are apathetic, may be ill but not registered for postal votes etc., so the chances of being caught are remote, and we therefore do not know how widespread it is. Thus we do not know how much voting in person fraud there is, and I have always found it strange that some id is not required, even if it is not photo id. For example, rates bills, utility bills, bank statements, etc.

Your logic is kinda correct, but there are some good pointers to levels of in-person voting fraud being very low. Consider that it's a crime for which there is virtually no personal gain (other than to the candidate). The scenario you describe requires the fraudster to do some planning and risk (I'm guessing, a jail term, I don't know what the exact penalties are) in order to make a difference of - presumably, one or two votes at most in an election where you typically need thousands of votes to make a difference in most parliamentary constituencies, or hundreds of votes in most council areas. You'd have to be politically *extremely* motivated to want to do that.

Also, I've spent many years in the Labour Party in various constituencies. In that time I've never once encountered any hint of a culture of anyone thinking it would be OK to try to vote fraudulently, nor can I recall encountering anyone who voiced any thoughts of doing so. And of course, if we ever got any hint of members of a rival party seeking to commit fraud, the agents and legal guys within the party would be onto it and kicking up a huge fuss straight away, yet I can't recall that ever happening. You'd think if voter fraud was widespread nationally, then a reasonable number of people in various political parties would be encountering hints of a culture of others being prepared to commit fraud - yet I'm not aware of any reports of that. That doesn't prove, but strongly suggests, that in-person voting fraud is at insignificant levels nationally.

(Obviously, events in Tower Hamlets show that there may well be some localised groups more willing to commit fraud within their own areas. But wasn't the fraud in Tower Hamlets more around postal voting? I can't recall the details).

 

[DarloRich]

There's been some rather more pressing issues (at least for the government) since then

It may well be kite flying, but it's quite clearly something the government want to "get done" as they've been banging on about it for long enough

I agree they want to do this. They are testing the water for thier post covid agenda just as they are with free speech and statues. It is not worth getting worked up about it until detail is known.

However, anything proposed in a Queens Speech is subject to the parlimentary timetable and the trade offs that come with managing that timetable

I will point out that everyone i know "poor" "elderly" or otherwise has photo id of some form. When i was "poor" i had photo id. It is 2021 not 1876!

Ps is suspect any fraud that does occur does not happen at the polling station!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I agree they want to do this. They are testing the water for thier post covid agenda just as they are with free speech and statues. It is not worth getting worked up about it until detail is known.

If, as you say, they are testing the water, then wouldn't now be the perfect time to start shouting/campaigning about it? Testing the water is the point at which, if the proposal is met with a chorus of 'Hey, you're just gerrymandering, we want other priorities', then they'd be most likely to decide the idea is not worth proceeding with. (Of course the catch is, that only works if the chorus is communicated to Tory MPs by people whose votes they perceive as up-for-grabs. Posts on railforums don't really count in that regard )

 

[DarloRich]

If, as you say, they are testing the water, then wouldn't now be the perfect time to start shouting/campaigning about it? Testing the water is the point at which, if the proposal is met with a chorus of 'Hey, you're just gerrymandering, we want other priorities', then they'd be most likely to decide the idea is not worth proceeding with. (Of course the catch is, that only works if the chorus is communicated to Tory MPs by people whose votes they perceive as up-for-grabs. Posts on railforums don't really count in that regard )

Absolutly. It is the views of thier voters they care about. Our views dont register. With an 80 seat majority they can and will do as they like.

I will happily email my Tory MP telling him what i think and he will write back telling me that he notes my comments but will support the the Governement because (insert noise) but really promotion

Ps there are easier ways to gerrymander. Constituency boundry changes is my favorite.

 

[brad465]

Absolutely. It is the views of their voters they care about. Our views don't register. With an 80 seat majority they can and will do as they like.

I will happily email my Tory MP telling him what i think and he will write back telling me that he notes my comments but will support the the Government because (insert noise) but really promotion

Ps there are easier ways to gerrymander. Constituency boundary changes is my favourite.

There are also boundary changes on the card as well, although that's no guarantee of a win for a party the move is more favourable for. I believe the 1997 boundary changes would have helped the Tories a bit more than in 1992, and/or after their slim majority collapsed if there was no swing in votes, but having royally messed up with Black Wednesday and been up against a then popular Tony Blair they were humiliated. There's plenty they've messed up on so far and can do before 2024 that has disenfranchised their voter base so far (Covid especially, Brexit remains to be seen) that might allow an opportunity for their departure from Government, but a lot can happen in the next 3 years.

 

[najaB]

Is this a case of trying to find a solution to a problem that doesn't actually exist?

No, it's a rather effective solution to the problem of too many people voting. In almost all democracies large turnouts favour the liberal/progressive parties.

 

[37424]

I don't know whether we should ask voters to show ID at the polling stations but I would ask is the voting registration system good enough. I believe when you register to vote it asks for an NI number, but how well is that NI number checked? if you don't have an NI number then you have to say why and potentially provide documents to prove ID, perhaps you should need to do this regardless of NI number?

 

[birchesgreen]

Unless photo ID is made compulsory for everyone then requiring it to vote is blatantly discriminatory.

 

[AlterEgo]

You already have to show photo ID to vote in person in Northern Ireland.

https://www.gov.uk/voting-in-the-uk/voting-in-person

Somehow the world keeps turning, the sun gets up in the morning, and no-one's unduly worried.

Yes, and this is in a part of the country which had *actual* legal disenfranchisement in local elections until the 1970s.
It’s not an issue in Northern Ireland and shouldn’t be an issue here.

 

[najaB]

It’s not an issue in Northern Ireland and shouldn’t be an issue here.

Except experience in the USA has demonstrated that voter ID laws disproportionately affect poor and minority voters since they are the least likely to have acceptable ID.

Being opposed to universal government provided ID and requiring ID in order to vote are not compatible.

 

[westv]

I have a postal vote so whatever happens it won't affect me.

 

[najaB]

I have a postal vote so whatever happens it won't affect me.

If they really wanted to fix the non-issue that is voter fraud, they would be better placed to tackle postal voting than in-person fraud. But, purely coincidentally I'm sure, postal voting in the UK tends to lean Conservative.

 

[MissPWay]

This has the flavour of imported USA style formented “culture war.”

Its traditionallybeen a relative non-issue in the UK except for the usual hysterical rantings from the Daily Mail about postal vote fraud in majority Muslim areas every so often.

Johnson has had help from Steve Bannon before, and I’d also be surprised if Cummings had actually slithered back into whatever dimension he habitually inhabits like we’re supposed to believe.

They’re probably just wanting to push billions of taxpayers money in dodgy government contracts to their “donors,” and Russian handlers whilst we’re distracted by it all. Plus ca change.

 

[david1212]

If this came in I would not be able to vote in person until I am 70 and, presuming no reason for refusal, have to renew my driving licence. It is currently a proper paper one issued in 1988. I do not have a passport. The only photo ID card I have is for access to the site of one of my employers customers. They retain the card and issue it only while on their premises.

 

[RT4038]

If this came in I would not be able to vote in person until I am 70 and, presuming no reason for refusal, have to renew my driving licence. It is currently a proper paper one issued in 1988. I do not have a passport. The only photo ID card I have is for access to the site of one of my employers customers. They retain the card and issue it only while on their premises.

Yes you could, by changing your driving licence for a photocard.

 

[najaB]

Yes you could, by changing your driving licence for a photocard.

I think the fact that the term "proper paper one" tells you how likely that is to happen. But recalcitrance aside, it does highlight the incongruence of refusing to countenance national ID cards in the name of liberty, while demanding that everyone possess national ID in order to exercise the most fundamental of democratic rights.

 

[RT4038]

I think the fact that the term "proper paper one" tells you how likely that is to happen. But recalcitrance aside, it does highlight the incongruence of refusing to countenance national ID cards in the name of liberty, while demanding that everyone possess national ID in order to exercise the most fundamental of democratic rights.

Quite. There can't be many countries in the world that don't demand Photo ID to vote?

 

[najaB]

There can't be many countries in the world that don't demand Photo ID to vote?

I suspect there are as many that don't as do. But almost all that do also have universal state-issued ID cards.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I suspect there are as many that don't as do. But almost all that do also have universal state-issued ID cards.

And that's kinda the point. Personally I'd have absolutely no objection to photo-ID to vote IF we had an ID card system that meant everyone has an ID card and therefore it's a completely level playing field, with everyone equally able to access the required photo-ID. In fact, in that situation, I'd say that requiring ID to vote is a pretty good idea, since you'd get protection against the small possibility of fraud for free, with no significant downsides.

But requiring photo-ID to vote in a situation where not everyone can easily get photo-ID is wrong because of the way it means being able to vote is no longer a level playing field.

I think the fact that the term "proper paper one" tells you how likely that is to happen. But recalcitrance aside, it does highlight the incongruence of refusing to countenance national ID cards in the name of liberty, while demanding that everyone possess national ID in order to exercise the most fundamental of democratic rights.

The irony there is that the Tories opposed national ID cards on grounds of loss of liberty/democratic rights - when in fact ID cards would not actually have caused any meaningful loss of liberty. But then they have repeatedly supported requiring photo-ID to vote, which probably will - in the absence of a national ID card - for all practical purposes result in some people being effectively denied their democratic rights.

 

[Typhoon]

And that's kinda the point. Personally I'd have absolutely no objection to photo-ID to vote IF we had an ID card system that meant everyone has an ID card and therefore it's a completely level playing field, with everyone equally able to access the required photo-ID. In fact, in that situation, I'd say that requiring ID to vote is a pretty good idea, since you'd get protection against the small possibility of fraud for free, with no significant downsides.

But requiring photo-ID to vote in a situation where not everyone can easily get photo-ID is wrong because of the way it means being able to vote is no longer a level playing field.

Spot on.
Although there are plans for those without photoID to be able to apply for some form of local identity document, it may be at the whim of a Local Authority as to how difficult that is to obtain. I am assuming that it will have a photo on it, specify that the photo would have to be taken at LA offices, then limit the place(s) or time(s) when it can be obtained. There will be initial demand but time goes by, the use of the facility will drop off, golden opportunity to reduce availability by claiming that resources are tight. Alternatively, insist on photos be taken at a very limited set of photo booths (selected for cost and remoteness). There will be all sorts of ways of ways to make it difficult for the casual voter to vote. What is galling is that when I voted in person, I always took my polling card but, because I have chosen not to try to increase the number of incompetent drivers by 1 and because there are still far too many great parts of this country I want to explore while I still can, I don't have the usual forms of photo-ID.

The irony there is that the Tories opposed national ID cards on grounds of loss of liberty/democratic rights - when in fact ID cards would not actually have caused any meaningful loss of liberty. But then they have repeatedly supported requiring photo-ID to vote, which probably will - in the absence of a national ID card - for all practical purposes result in some people being effectively denied their democratic rights.

No irony, just self-interest! I will be looking to see how the likes of David Davis vote. What is particularly irritating is that those groups who are more likely to be affected (ethnic minorities, low paid or otherwise economically disadvantaged) are those who are equally to be more likely to be missing from the electoral roll in the first place.