Law Change will require voters to show photo ID

[Mcr Warrior]

No representation without taxation!

Thought it was the other way round, but still a good point.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Thought it was the other way round, but still a good point.

Yes, it is, that's the whole point.

Perhaps Mr Starmer would like to use it in one of his 'leader of the opposition' jousts with the PM.

 

[najaB]

You took the words out of my keyboard.

And mine...

Indeed. No representation without taxation.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The Americans also get taxed by the USA even when they live abroad, I suspect that wouldn’t go down to well with our expatriates.
I am sympathetic to the view that if you’ve moved abroad for such a long length of time you give up some of your rights to decide how your original country is run.

UK citizens living abroad would normally have to pay tax within whatever country they live in - so it doesn't seem unreasonable that the UK doesn't then try to tax them as well. After all, why should the UK have any claim on money that is earned outside the UK by someone living outside the UK? I believe the US system means that Americans living abroad will also pay tax within the country they live in - AND they then have to fill in a US tax return as well (so there's some risk of their paying tax twice, although there are some complex rules in the US tax system to try to account for that). I'd say it's the US system that is strange and arguably unfair.

As for whether tax should be linked to the right to vote. I would have thought people should have a right to vote somewhere. The problem is, if we don't let them vote in UK elections because they live abroad, and whatever country they live in doesn't let them vote because they are - as far as that country is concerned - foreigners - then expats end up without a right to vote anywhere.

I think the fairest way would be to allow expats to choose which ONE country they wish to vote in (in the same way that students can choose to register either at home or at their term-time lodgings). But that would require various international reciprocal agreements on voting rights that I really can't see happening anytime soon. So in the circumstances, allowing all expats to vote in UK elections is probably the least bad solution.

 

[najaB]

I'd say it's the US system that is strange and arguably unfair.

Why should someone who has chosen to live in another country and who doesn't contribute to the tax system get a say in how the country is run, while people who have chosen to live here and contribute to society have none? That is what is strange and unfair.

As for whether tax should be linked to the right to vote.

As has been alluded to by several posters, "no taxation without representation" works the other way too. Your right to vote must be linked to your civic responsibilities, IMO.

 

[AlterEgo]

Why should someone who has chosen to live in another country and who doesn't contribute to the tax system get a say in how the country is run, while people who have chosen to live here and contribute to society have none? That is what is strange and unfair. As has been alluded to by several posters, "no taxation without representation" works the other way too. Your right to vote must be linked to your civic responsibilities, IMO.

I don’t think the right to vote should be linked to whether or not you pay income tax, or contribute to society. I see where you’re coming from, but I don’t see it’s a sound argument.

 

[GusB]

Why should someone who has chosen to live in another country and who doesn't contribute to the tax system get a say in how the country is run, while people who have chosen to live here and contribute to society have none? That is what is strange and unfair. As has been alluded to by several posters, "no taxation without representation" works the other way too. Your right to vote must be linked to your civic responsibilities, IMO.

I agree with this. If you choose to go and live in another country because the money/weather/whatever is better, you should expect to give up having a say in your native country. I would argue that you should have a say in the politics where you live, but not where you left.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Why should someone who has chosen to live in another country and who doesn't contribute to the tax system get a say in how the country is run, while people who have chosen to live here and contribute to society have none? That is what is strange and unfair. As has been alluded to by several posters, "no taxation without representation" works the other way too. Your right to vote must be linked to your civic responsibilities, IMO.

Lots of people living in the UK don't pay any direct taxes, so you could argue they don't 'contribute to society' - people on lower incomes, the homeless, students, the unemployed - and of course, a very large number of retired people[*]. Using the 'no representation without taxation' argument people are making, would you argue for those people to have their right to vote removed?

[*] Yes I know you could argue about VAT. I'd say it's really the retailer who is paying that. And besides, most expats would buy stuff for which VAT is applicable whenever they visit the UK.

 

[najaB]

Lots of people living in the UK don't pay any direct taxes, so you could argue they don't 'contribute to society' - people on lower incomes, the homeless, students, the unemployed - and of course, a very large number of retired people[*]. Using the 'no representation without taxation' argument people are making, would you argue for those people to have their right to vote removed?

It's not about the actual paying of taxes, it's about taking on the liability for taxes (in the case of residents) vs people who have chosen* to relocate and so escape that liability. And people who don't pay direct taxes (and even those who don't pay indirect taxes through VAT, etc) contribute to society in other ways. Contribution isn't always financial.

How does someone who has lived outside the UK for more than 15 years make a meaningful impact on - I was going to write "their community" but after a decade and a half is it even their community any more - make a meaningful impact on UK society?

*And that's the key point - we aren't talking about stripping people of a right, we're talking about people who have chosen to escape their responsibilities (yes, often for valid personal reasons). Civic rights go hand-in-hand with civic responsibilities.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I agree with this. If you choose to go and live in another country because the money/weather/whatever is better, you should expect to give up having a say in your native country. I would argue that you should have a say in the politics where you live, but not where you left.

There is some sense in this, but I think the thing it's missing is that a fair few people will go and live in another country with some intention of eventually returning to the UK, or with the intention of maintaining strong links with the UK while they are abroad - maybe even, returning to the UK for some months each year. And the reverse is true too - I can think of a number of people from other countries I've known who have got ILR in the UK, but who nevertheless feel a stronger attachment to their home country and in some cases have an intention to return there after a few years. I don't think you can generalise from 'currently living abroad' to 'no longer has a legitimate attachment to your home country'. That's why in an ideal World, I would tend to prefer a system where you give each individual expat the choice of which country they feel they wish to have a say in.

I somewhat agree too with having a say in politics where you live - but that only really works if you've already lived in the country for a few years (otherwise you probably have no knowledge of the local politics on which to base any say) and you really are committed to staying permanently in that country and giving up many of your links with the UK.

 

[najaB]

There is some sense in this, but I think the thing it's missing is that a fair few people will go and live in another country with some intention of eventually returning to the UK, or with the intention of maintaining strong links with the UK while they are abroad - maybe even, returning to the UK for some months each year.

Which is why I would say that people who have an active connection with the UK should still be able to vote. There will naturally be debate over what constitutes an active connection but simply being born here or owning property isn't enough. The first five years after emigrating, spending more than 90 days out of a year in the UK, owning an active UK-registered business with employees resident in the UK all count as active participation to me.

 

[jfollows]

Today's Guardian editorial is unsurprisingly against the requirement for photo ID in polling stations: https://www.theguardian.com/comment...oting-rights-dont-import-us-style-suppression

The Guardian view on voting rights: don't import US-style suppression

Editorial

Governments should promote elections, not undermine them. Tory plans for compulsory ID must be resisted

Democracy has many flaws, as Winston Churchill pointed out. It is also extraordinarily precious: the painstaking achievement of centuries of progress. In the UK, the system is stagnant. First past the post, defended for years on grounds that it excluded extremists, has done no such thing: since the 2016 referendum, a faction of hardline Brexiters has risen to power. But imperfect as current arrangements are, the right of all adults to vote in elections remains hugely important – a principle that ought to be shared by all democrats. That Boris Johnson’s government appears to be backtracking from this idea is one of the grimmest indications yet of where the current Tory party is heading.

The requirement to show photo ID in polling stations, which is expected to be introduced from 2023, looks very much like an attack on voting rights. Evidence of fraud, which the government claims is behind it, is minimal. Between 2010 and 2016, when there were two general elections and a referendum, there were just seven convictions. Research by the Electoral Commission following two pilots showed that the requirement for identification reduced the number of votes cast: in 2019, around 750 people sent away from polling stations did not come back. The Local Government Chronicle highlighted cases where even a small number of rejections could lead to a changed result: in Mid Sussex, where 78 people were turned back, several council seats were won with margins of fewer than 25 votes.

Labour, the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish National party, Plaid Cymru and the Greens all oppose voter ID. So do important civil society groups. This resistance is why the implementation of proposals put forward in a report by Eric Pickles in 2016 has been delayed. But the government is now ready to trample the arguments of its opponents. Besides the lack of evidence of fraud, these include the impact on marginalised groups, whose members are less likely to have suitable documents: 47% of black people have no driving licence, for example, compared with 24% of white people. While in other European countries where ID is used for voting, governments issue national ID cards, in the UK 11 million people have neither a passport nor a driving licence.

But neither facts like this, nor the low turnout in many elections (in English local elections in 2018, for example, it was 35%), nor the warnings of US civil rights groups have deterred ministers. Instead, in pursuing measures that are expected to increase their share of the vote (since those excluded are more likely to be Labour supporters), they appear determined to mimic Donald Trump. In the US, voter suppression measures – of which ID requirements are one – are rooted in the Jim Crow south, and opposed by some on the right as well as left (on Monday the second-highest ranking Republican in Georgia refused to preside over a session in the state senate in which new restrictions were passed). For Mr Trump and his supporters, spurious claims of fraud are used to stoke racial hatred and paranoia.

To say that importing such measures to the UK is provocative is an understatement. At a time when cultural divisions are inflamed, and minority ethnic communities have been hit hard by the pandemic, it is incendiary. As well as penalising minorities and the parties they support, the talk of fraud that is sure to accompany legislation threatens to undermine trust in democracy and institutions more widely. It is not too late for the government to change course. If it refuses, these proposals must be resisted every step of the way.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

You can't require ID to vote and neither have an exhaustive list of what is acceptable nor fail to provide relevant ID to those who want it. With an exhaustive list local officers can refuse ID that others would consider valid. That rejection or acceptance could easily be construed as political in nature regardless of whether or not it actually is. Seems clear as day to me that is a chance by the Tories - recently noted as abusing emergency powers for PPE supplies from their mates - to disenfranchise those who are very unlikely to vote for them. Elections are one of those things where 99% simply isn't good enough to call it a day - even if 99.9% of people had valid ID that's not good enough.

If they want to look at fixing the election process I hear Proportional Representation has been around for the last 100 years but I guess the idea of voters being represented fairly isn't British enough /s

All PR would do is create New Labour style Lib/Lab coalitions that would run itself into the ground over Europe, Labour/Green/SNP coalitions that would cause constitutional cahos, or Cameronite Con/Lib coalitions that the Liberal membership would loathe. Whatever coalition would arise would be so unnatractive the Tories would hold a referendum to bring back FPTP which would probably win.

 

[najaB]

All PR would do is create New Labour style Lib/Lab coalitions that would run itself into the ground over Europe, Labour/Green/SNP coalitions that would cause constitutional cahos, or Cameronite Con/Lib coalitions that the Liberal membership would loathe.

Strange how PR works in countries all over the world but couldn't work here.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Strange how PR works in countries all over the world but couldn't work here.

All other countries don't have British political parties.

 

[najaB]

All other countries don't have British political parties.

So the problem isn't our voting system, it's our parties. Which exist, in the form that they do, because of our voting system. FPTP is designed to bake in a two-party political system and stifle diversity of opinion.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

So the problem isn't our voting system, it's our parties. Which exist, in the form that they do, because of our voting system. FPTP is designed to bake in a two-party political system and stifle diversity of opinion.

This might be true, but British political parties are too far along to become coalitions. There is no way the Labour left will get in bed with the Liberals. The Liberals won't work with Tories. The Tories won't want to work with anyone. The Greens and Liberals will create a coalition that Middle England would hate. It won't work-Britain isn't that country.

 

[najaB]

It won't work-Britain isn't that country.

If you always do what you've always done you'll always get what you've always got.

 

[Domh245]

There is no way the Labour left will get in bed with the Liberals. The Liberals won't work with Tories. The Tories won't want to work with anyone.

But the current unholy alliances of corbynites & blairites, or (at least, pre December 19) one nation conservatives & ERG UKIP-lites are fine??

 

[Annetts key]

Um, some points...

The current political parties are ALREADY coalition’s...

If you don’t think that the parties can adapt, then maybe we should redefine what a political party can and cannot do. So for example, maybe candidates should be selected by the public before the actual election instead being selected by the parties.

Oh, and before brexit, the elections for members of the European Parliament were elected by a form of P.R. so our political parties do know and understand the process.

Also there are various councils with no overall control so these have to work as alliances.

If U.K. citizens that live abroad can vote in a national election in the U.K., why can’t I vote in the council elections in the city where I work? I currently don’t get a vote because I live in a different authority area.

 

[TheSel]

why can’t I vote in the council elections in the city where I work? I currently don’t get a vote because I live in a different authority area.

You've answered your own question.

Of course, you could move - house or job!

 

[Sad Sprinter]

But the current unholy alliances of corbynites & blairites, or (at least, pre December 19) one nation conservatives & ERG UKIP-lites are fine??

Um, some points...

The current political parties are ALREADY coalition’s...

If you don’t think that the parties can adapt, then maybe we should redefine what a political party can and cannot do. So for example, maybe candidates should be selected by the public before the actual election instead being selected by the parties.

Oh, and before brexit, the elections for members of the European Parliament were elected by a form of P.R. so our political parties do know and understand the process.

Also there are various councils with no overall control so these have to work as alliances.

If U.K. citizens that live abroad can vote in a national election in the U.K., why can’t I vote in the council elections in the city where I work? I currently don’t get a vote because I live in a different authority area.

Yes our parties are currently coalitions, but its not quite the same. For the Tories at least, Cameronites who are a bit glum about Brexit and don't really get all this Red Wall stuff, stay in the same party as Johnsonian Levelling up types, because they both unite around the premise that Labour is fundamentally bad. The Liberals, post Brexit, clearly see the Tories as the enemy, whilst Labour has two factions who can't really unite-but both claim possession to the heart of Labour.

So, this assumes that the two Tory and Labour factions really would want to split in a PR system. The current political system creates an incredibly intense feeling of belonging to either party that I don't think is matched in any other country in Europe. European politicans, like Emmuanel Macron, seem to be able to drift from a Socialist or Communist party to the centre and all in-between. There is no institutionalisation like there is in Britain, so we may just end up with the same two political parties in a system that requires the Lid Dems to form a majority.

As I said, there is no alliance that could be made that would create a reasonable government. PR might just push Middle England into unitng around the Tories to avoid the pro-European greens or Liberals getting in with Labour-or the SNP. Which would just produce weak Tory governments reliant on Reform Party support and vunerable to Liberal/Green/Labour/SNP attacks. Count me out.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

This might be true, but British political parties are too far along to become coalitions. There is no way the Labour left will get in bed with the Liberals. The Liberals won't work with Tories. The Tories won't want to work with anyone. The Greens and Liberals will create a coalition that Middle England would hate. It won't work-Britain isn't that country.

I think you'd find things would change pretty quickly if we actually had PR - as the parties would all rapidly discover that they can no longer get anywhere without doing some kind of consensus-building.

Even if there wasn't a coalition (and I agree, in the short term, the parties all distrust each other too much to make any close coalitions likely) you'd have a minority Government that would quickly learn that it had to build a consensus to get legislation through the Commons. I think you could make a pretty good case that that would lead to better, less divisive, legislation.

 

[XAM2175]

So, this assumes that the two Tory and Labour factions really would want to split in a PR system. The current political system creates an incredibly intense feeling of belonging to either party that I don't think is matched in any other country in Europe.

PR did deliver a Conservative-Labour coalition for Aberdeen City Council in 2017 so it does seem like they're capable of learning a certain amount of pragmatism.

 

[najaB]

The current political system creates an incredibly intense feeling of belonging to either party that I don't think is matched in any other country in Europe

AKA tribalism. Not sure this is a good thing.

 

[jfollows]

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.

Supreme court to hear challenge to UK's voter ID trial in 2019 election

Exclusive: Case could affect expected rollout of scheme seen as disenfranchising marginalised people

The government is expected to introduce a bill in the spring to make photo IDs mandatory at UK-wide and English elections.

Haroon Siddique

The supreme court is to hear a challenge to the government’s decision to hold voter ID trials in 2019 in a case that could have implications for the wider rollout of the scheme.

The government is expected to introduce a bill in the spring to make photo ID mandatory from 2023 for all UK-wide and English elections despite warnings it would disenfranchise working class and minority ethnic communities.

Neil Coughlan was unsuccessful in a legal challenge to prevent pilots at 10 local authorities at the May 2019 elections but has now been granted permission to take his claim to the UK’s highest court.

The LGBT Foundation and Stonewall, representing the interests of individuals who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual and/or trans, and the Runnymede Trust, Operation Black Vote and Voice4Change, representing the interests of black, Asian and minority ethnic voters, have also been allowed to take part in the supreme court case.

Coughlan, 68, a retired voluntary worker who lives in Witham, Essex, one of the areas where the 2019 pilots took place, said: “I am hopeful that the supreme court judges will agree that when 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

“Requiring individuals to produce identity documents is going to deprive legitimate members of the electorate of the vote and I believe it will disproportionately affect the poor and marginalised members of our society.”

Coughlan, who is raising his legal fees through CrowdJustice, lost his case at the court of appeal last year, although one judge said the arguments were “finely balanced”.

Among the arguments Coughlan’s lawyers, from Leigh Day, will make, is that the court was wrong to say measures to combat electoral fraud were consistent with what parliament intended because they would encourage and facilitate voting in the longer term. He says a demand for ID such as a passport, driving licence or utility bill at the polling station “frustrates the facilitation and encouragement to vote”.

Cat Smith, shadow minister for democracy, said: “Voting is a fundamental democratic right, not a privilege for those with the right form of photo ID.

“The range of different civil rights and charity groups supporting this case is testament to the widespread impact this policy will have of suppressing voters across all sections of society.”

The trials at English council elections in 2018 and 2019 permitted voters in different areas to show a variety of documents, but the proposed law is expected to mandate photo ID such as a passport or driving licence. Approximately 11 million electors (24% of the electorate) hold neither of these items.

Tessa Gregory, a solicitor with Leigh Day, said Coughlan hoped that the appeal would show how mandating voter ID “will exclude those at the margins of society whom our democratic institutions need to work the hardest to engage”.

A date has yet to be fixed for the supreme court hearing.

Chloe Smith, minister of state for the constitution and devolution, said: “A local electoral card will be available free of charge from their local council for anyone who wants it.”

 

[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 trials at English council elections in 2018 and 2019 permitted voters in different areas to show a variety of documents, but the proposed law is expected to mandate photo ID such as a passport or driving licence. Approximately 11 million electors (24% of the electorate) hold neither of these items.

Seems almost dishonest as reporting. Isn’t what we know of the proposals so far that free photo ID would be available, so not having a passport or a driving licence is almost irrelevant?

 

[najaB]

Isn’t what we know of the proposals so far that free photo ID would be available

We do not know that.

 

[Butts]

We do not know that.

As turnouts for a lot of Local Elections are minuscule under existing requirements, is the imposition of an ID requirement really going to make a significant difference to the numbers casting a vote ?

 

[najaB]

As turnouts for a lot of Local Elections are minuscule under existing requirements, is the imposition of an ID requirement really going to make a significant difference to the numbers casting a vote ?

As you say, turnout is already low so anything that suppresses the vote has a larger proportional impact.

Especially as it's stated aim is to fix a problem that doesn't exist.