FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Voter suppression

Voter suppression

By *asyuk OP Man over a year ago

West London

Where the US leads we follow.

More major changes being introduced without adequate oversight whilst in the middle of a pandemic.

Up to 9 million voters, most likely to be non Tory voting, being left off the electoral roles in contradiction to recommendations.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/voter-registration-electoral-roll-conservatives-government-boundary-changes-a9575451.html

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *vbride1963TV/TS over a year ago

E.K . Glasgow

Along with no news of the Russian interference report due to not forming the committee .

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53111507

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ebbie69Couple over a year ago

milton keynes

"Where the US leads we follow.

More major changes being introduced without adequate oversight whilst in the middle of a pandemic.

Up to 9 million voters, most likely to be non Tory voting, being left off the electoral roles in contradiction to recommendations.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/voter-registration-electoral-roll-conservatives-government-boundary-changes-a9575451.html"

is this so they can't vote in future elections at all if not on the electoral roll? If so that's terrible.

Or moved to a different constituency?

I recall a proposal about reducing the number of MP's

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyuk OP Man over a year ago

West London

"Where the US leads we follow.

More major changes being introduced without adequate oversight whilst in the middle of a pandemic.

Up to 9 million voters, most likely to be non Tory voting, being left off the electoral roles in contradiction to recommendations.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/voter-registration-electoral-roll-conservatives-government-boundary-changes-a9575451.html

is this so they can't vote in future elections at all if not on the electoral roll? If so that's terrible.

Or moved to a different constituency?

I recall a proposal about reducing the number of MP's"

It means that councils will not check registration every year for each property which encourages voting as it prompts people to register.

The young and poor are lost likely to move more regularly and are also less likely to be Conservative voters.

The Government have dropped the reduction in the number of constituencies.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ebbie69Couple over a year ago

milton keynes

"Where the US leads we follow.

More major changes being introduced without adequate oversight whilst in the middle of a pandemic.

Up to 9 million voters, most likely to be non Tory voting, being left off the electoral roles in contradiction to recommendations.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/voter-registration-electoral-roll-conservatives-government-boundary-changes-a9575451.html

is this so they can't vote in future elections at all if not on the electoral roll? If so that's terrible.

Or moved to a different constituency?

I recall a proposal about reducing the number of MP's

It means that councils will not check registration every year for each property which encourages voting as it prompts people to register.

The young and poor are lost likely to move more regularly and are also less likely to be Conservative voters.

The Government have dropped the reduction in the number of constituencies."

Ok not quite what I feared when first reading your post. Is it all councils now that will not check if people are registered. I assume you refer to the letter we get now and then asking people to confirm people if voting age in their household?.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *mmabluTV/TS over a year ago

upton wirral

"Where the US leads we follow.

More major changes being introduced without adequate oversight whilst in the middle of a pandemic.

Up to 9 million voters, most likely to be non Tory voting, being left off the electoral roles in contradiction to recommendations.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/voter-registration-electoral-roll-conservatives-government-boundary-changes-a9575451.html"
You clearly lack an understanding of this.Tory voters are allways more like to vote than labour voters,this is true of many democratic countries.

There are many reasons for this but one major factors is at election times the tories are more organised at getting there core vote out.

Labour historically fail to do this,even if they win the argument if they do not get these people to vote they will not win.

I have worked with people in deprived areas and they say they do not vote because nobody cares about them.Well if the labour party does they should do something about it

Nevermind putting down to conspiracy look for real reasons.

Of course you will dismiss what I say I am sure

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ebbie69Couple over a year ago

milton keynes

"Where the US leads we follow.

More major changes being introduced without adequate oversight whilst in the middle of a pandemic.

Up to 9 million voters, most likely to be non Tory voting, being left off the electoral roles in contradiction to recommendations.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/voter-registration-electoral-roll-conservatives-government-boundary-changes-a9575451.htmlYou clearly lack an understanding of this.Tory voters are allways more like to vote than labour voters,this is true of many democratic countries.

There are many reasons for this but one major factors is at election times the tories are more organised at getting there core vote out.

Labour historically fail to do this,even if they win the argument if they do not get these people to vote they will not win.

I have worked with people in deprived areas and they say they do not vote because nobody cares about them.Well if the labour party does they should do something about it

Nevermind putting down to conspiracy look for real reasons.

Of course you will dismiss what I say I am sure

In your opinion does the claim made by the OP make Labour supporters less likely to register on the electoral roll and therefore not vote? Last time I had one of these forms it was very easy and quick to do online

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *obka3Couple over a year ago

bournemouth

Perhaps we need to send a car round to pick up all these poor souls and carry them into the voting stations .

My heart bleeds for the lazy sods, we all know if you want to vote we register, if you dont you cant vote,

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *mmabluTV/TS over a year ago

upton wirral

"Perhaps we need to send a car round to pick up all these poor souls and carry them into the voting stations .

My heart bleeds for the lazy sods, we all know if you want to vote we register, if you dont you cant vote, "
That is what the tories do

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyuk OP Man over a year ago

West London

"Where the US leads we follow.

More major changes being introduced without adequate oversight whilst in the middle of a pandemic.

Up to 9 million voters, most likely to be non Tory voting, being left off the electoral roles in contradiction to recommendations.

There are many reasons for this but one major factors is at election times the tories are more organised at getting there core vote out.

Labour historically fail to do this,even if they win the argument if they do not get these people to vote they will not win.

I have worked with people in deprived areas and they say they do not vote because nobody cares about them.Well if the labour party does they should do something about it

Nevermind putting down to conspiracy look for real reasons.

Of course you will dismiss what I say I am sure

That's not really true is it?

You are telling me that in every general election, the Conservative party has had a higher share of the vote than Labour?

There's never been a non-Conservative government?

That's demonstrably untrue isn't it?

This is not a "conspiracy".

Why do you think that the Conservative party is changing the law so that Council's should not regularly check voter registration and therefore encourage engagement in democracy?

As a bonus question, why should it be Labour that engages "people in deprived areas" that say "they do not vote because nobody cares about them"?

Does the Tory Party not want to engage them for some reason?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyuk OP Man over a year ago

West London

"Perhaps we need to send a car round to pick up all these poor souls and carry them into the voting stations .

My heart bleeds for the lazy sods, we all know if you want to vote we register, if you dont you cant vote, "

That is an unpleasant view you have of some people.

Nothing more to say.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ik MMan over a year ago

Lancashire

If you think making people have to sort their own right to vote out is bad just wait till you hear about the postal vote scandal that happens in some constituencies. Oh, and Labour’s plan to reduce the voting age to 16...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *estivalMan over a year ago

borehamwood

am i missing something? you have to be over 18 to vote yea.why should it be anyone elses job to make sure your registerd i thought once you reach 18 your old enough to take control of your own life.wana vote register dont wana vote dont register.personal respnsibility and all that.i dont vote so dont register if i did want to vote id register myself its not rocket science

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *zn marriedMan over a year ago

GLASGOW

"am i missing something? you have to be over 18 to vote yea.why should it be anyone elses job to make sure your registerd i thought once you reach 18 your old enough to take control of your own life.wana vote register dont wana vote dont register.personal respnsibility and all that.i dont vote so dont register if i did want to vote id register myself its not rocket science"

It's a big scam rigged

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *wisted999Man over a year ago

North Bucks

So those who really need to vote for the others guys can’t vote?

But they can vote if they take some personal responsibility?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *estivalMan over a year ago

borehamwood

yep if u want to vote go register its not hard or confusing to do.dont register dont vote.ive not been registering for 20plus years.if i do ever feel like i want to vote again i will either register online or pop my head in the council offices and get em to send me the form out.its not the goverment of the days job to make sure people are registerd that responsibility is down to the individual

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ionelhutzMan over a year ago

liverpool

"If you think making people have to sort their own right to vote out is bad just wait till you hear about the postal vote scandal that happens in some constituencies. Oh, and Labour’s plan to reduce the voting age to 16... "

Is that a bad thing?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ik MMan over a year ago

Lancashire

Is that a bad thing?"

Are you suggesting electoral fraud isn’t a bad thing?

As for the 16 proposal, it’s nothing but a blatant attempt to stack the odds in their favour for future elections

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ionelhutzMan over a year ago

liverpool

Is that a bad thing?

Are you suggesting electoral fraud isn’t a bad thing?

As for the 16 proposal, it’s nothing but a blatant attempt to stack the odds in their favour for future elections "

I meant the voter age.

You think 16 year old should not have the vote?

Why is it an attempt to stack the odds in their favour?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyuk OP Man over a year ago

West London

How many people?

Has it been acted on?

I disagree with lowering the voting age.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyuk OP Man over a year ago

West London

"yep if u want to vote go register its not hard or confusing to do.dont register dont vote.ive not been registering for 20plus years.if i do ever feel like i want to vote again i will either register online or pop my head in the council offices and get em to send me the form out.its not the goverment of the days job to make sure people are registerd that responsibility is down to the individual"

The very fact that a letter arrives to check voter registration is a prompt.

Further mailing then arrives at local and general elections and reminds people of the opportunity to make a postal ballot.

This all increases voter turnout.

What is the benefit to democracy in reducing democratic participation?

Why is finding a way to reduce the number of people likely to vote good?

You don't care how the country is run anyway so why post about politics at all?

Oh yes, it makes you happy to annoy people. Strange times

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The very fact that a letter arrives to check voter registration is a prompt.

Further mailing then arrives at local and general elections and reminds people of the opportunity to make a postal ballot.

This all increases voter turnout.

What is the benefit to democracy in reducing democratic participation?

Why is finding a way to reduce the number of people likely to vote good?

You don't care how the country is run anyway so why post about politics at all?

Oh yes, it makes you happy to annoy people. Strange times

Ok, so a letter is a prompt. However you are completely ignoring the fact that at election time you cannot escape the fact it is election time.

It is in every news paper, all over social media, every news program, party political broadcasts on tv and radio, leaflets through your door, councillors knocking on your door, signs in peoples windows gardens and cars, posters on massive billboards, rallies held in towns and cities countrywide etc, etc.

If people haven't taken the prompt already, a letter isn't going to make much difference, apart from wasting money, time and paper.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyuk OP Man over a year ago

West London

The very fact that a letter arrives to check voter registration is a prompt.

Further mailing then arrives at local and general elections and reminds people of the opportunity to make a postal ballot.

This all increases voter turnout.

What is the benefit to democracy in reducing democratic participation?

Why is finding a way to reduce the number of people likely to vote good?

You don't care how the country is run anyway so why post about politics at all?

Oh yes, it makes you happy to annoy people. Strange times

Ok, so a letter is a prompt. However you are completely ignoring the fact that at election time you cannot escape the fact it is election time.

If people haven't taken the prompt already, a letter isn't going to make much difference, apart from wasting money, time and paper.

You cannot register to vote less than two weeks before an election. People may decide to vote or be sufficiently engaged after that point.

You are saying that the only benefit of reducing the likelihood that people will vote is saving money?

It is a coincidence that those most positively effected like this are the young and the less well off who happen to be less likely to vote for the party making this change?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Is that a bad thing?

Are you suggesting electoral fraud isn’t a bad thing?

As for the 16 proposal, it’s nothing but a blatant attempt to stack the odds in their favour for future elections

I meant the voter age.

You think 16 year old should not have the vote?

Why is it an attempt to stack the odds in their favour?"

16 year old are still children. They have little to no understanding of how the world works and are easily manipulated. They are hormonal and irrational and succeptable to peer pressure.

In essence, they can easily be bought with empty promises of saving the pandas and free stuff.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyuk OP Man over a year ago

West London

Out of interest, which of the people who have posted an opinion have actually read the article through?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The very fact that a letter arrives to check voter registration is a prompt.

Further mailing then arrives at local and general elections and reminds people of the opportunity to make a postal ballot.

This all increases voter turnout.

What is the benefit to democracy in reducing democratic participation?

Why is finding a way to reduce the number of people likely to vote good?

You don't care how the country is run anyway so why post about politics at all?

Oh yes, it makes you happy to annoy people. Strange times

Ok, so a letter is a prompt. However you are completely ignoring the fact that at election time you cannot escape the fact it is election time.

If people haven't taken the prompt already, a letter isn't going to make much difference, apart from wasting money, time and paper.

You cannot register to vote less than two weeks before an election. People may decide to vote or be sufficiently engaged after that point.

You are saying that the only benefit of reducing the likelihood that people will vote is saving money?

It is a coincidence that those most positively effected like this are the young and the less well off who happen to be less likely to vote for the party making this change?"

No, i am saying that not sending the letter will have no effect on people engaging.

The election campaign starts way earlier than two weeks before the election and there are reminders all over the tv, radio, social media etc telling people to register. It can be done easily online and trying to say that people not getting a letter denies them the opportunity to vote is nothing more than nonsense and a poor attempt at trying to put blame on the tories for labours poor turn out.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Out of interest, which of the people who have posted an opinion have actually read the article through?"

I have, right up to the last paragraph, did you?

Out of interest, do you think people can have an opinion on a subject without reading what you want them to?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *obka3Couple over a year ago

bournemouth

No wonder the worlds in a mess when they need reminding to register to vote, next week it will be the schools job to remind parents their kids need to go to school and employers job to send a text each week reminding them to go to work on Monday.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Out of interest, which of the people who have posted an opinion have actually read the article through?"

I have, right up to the last paragraph, did you?

Out of interest, do you think people can have an opinion on a subject without reading what you want them to?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *estivalMan over a year ago

borehamwood

The very fact that a letter arrives to check voter registration is a prompt.

Further mailing then arrives at local and general elections and reminds people of the opportunity to make a postal ballot.

This all increases voter turnout.

What is the benefit to democracy in reducing democratic participation?

Why is finding a way to reduce the number of people likely to vote good?

You don't care how the country is run anyway so why post about politics at all?

Oh yes, it makes you happy to annoy people. Strange times

annoy people no.its an open firum on a site im a member of that means im free to post on it.i know you want everyone to agree with you but thats not the way things work.my opinion is just as valid as yours.will say it again its the individuals choice wether they vote or not.if someone is to dumb to know how to register mabey there not the sort of peeps you want voting.just think if all those thickos hadnt have been registerd brexit wouldnt have happend

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyuk OP Man over a year ago

West London

The very fact that a letter arrives to check voter registration is a prompt.

Further mailing then arrives at local and general elections and reminds people of the opportunity to make a postal ballot.

This all increases voter turnout.

What is the benefit to democracy in reducing democratic participation?

Why is finding a way to reduce the number of people likely to vote good?

You don't care how the country is run anyway so why post about politics at all?

Oh yes, it makes you happy to annoy people. Strange times

It isn't about being "dumb".

It's about it being a priority at a given point in time. Registering to vote is not as high a priority when moving house as getting your electricity connected. It is not a priority until there is an election. It is very easy to oust something like this off until it is too late.

Once again, what is the benefit to society of reducing voter participation in this way?

It's a direct question. Can you answer directly or will you "answer" like the politicians you claim to despise?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The very fact that a letter arrives to check voter registration is a prompt.

Further mailing then arrives at local and general elections and reminds people of the opportunity to make a postal ballot.

This all increases voter turnout.

What is the benefit to democracy in reducing democratic participation?

Why is finding a way to reduce the number of people likely to vote good?

You don't care how the country is run anyway so why post about politics at all?

Oh yes, it makes you happy to annoy people. Strange times

It isn't about being "dumb".

Once again, what is the benefit to society of reducing voter participation in this way?

It's a direct question. Can you answer directly or will you "answer" like the politicians you claim to despise?"

I will give you a direct question as you have chosen to ignore/avoid my previous points.

Why do you think a letter to remind someone to vote makes a difference when people have already ignored the numerous prompts already mentioned and the unavoidable circus that surrounds an election?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *estivalMan over a year ago

borehamwood

The very fact that a letter arrives to check voter registration is a prompt.

Further mailing then arrives at local and general elections and reminds people of the opportunity to make a postal ballot.

This all increases voter turnout.

What is the benefit to democracy in reducing democratic participation?

Why is finding a way to reduce the number of people likely to vote good?

You don't care how the country is run anyway so why post about politics at all?

Oh yes, it makes you happy to annoy people. Strange times

It isn't about being "dumb".

Once again, what is the benefit to society of reducing voter participation in this way?

It's a direct question. Can you answer directly or will you "answer" like the politicians you claim to despise?"

haha ive answerd your question already.why is it the goverment of the times problem to make sure if people are registerd or notif you wana vote you will make sure your registerd if u aint botherd you wont register.why do you think its the goverments job to make sure.u seem to think the goverment should hold everyones hand every step of there life.peeps should really take ressponsibilty for themselves sometime you know.u just dint like peoples answers if they dont answer the way you want em to.had a teacher lime you at school once.used to laugh at him aswell xx

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ebbie69Couple over a year ago

milton keynes

I seem to remember from the last GE that 4 weeks campaign time is the absolute minimum allowed. I may be wrong on that but cannot remember it ever being less in fact often longer. This means a minimum of 2 weeks of it being unavoidable so plenty of time to get registered. Also with the fixed term act we know years in advance when it will be unless of course a situation like last year occurs but even then it's spread all over. I do agree the more people voting the better but its up to each of us to make sure we do

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ostafunMan over a year ago

near ipswich

The very fact that a letter arrives to check voter registration is a prompt.

Further mailing then arrives at local and general elections and reminds people of the opportunity to make a postal ballot.

This all increases voter turnout.

What is the benefit to democracy in reducing democratic participation?

Why is finding a way to reduce the number of people likely to vote good?

You don't care how the country is run anyway so why post about politics at all?

Oh yes, it makes you happy to annoy people. Strange times

It isn't about being "dumb".

Once again, what is the benefit to society of reducing voter participation in this way?

It's a direct question. Can you answer directly or will you "answer" like the politicians you claim to despise?"
More Tory bashing scrapping the bottom of the barrel now. It's not hard to check if you are on the electoral roll more non news.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *hybloke67Man over a year ago

ROMFORD

Surely it's the individuals responsibility to make sure they are on the Electrol list.

You know way in advance when general and local elections are.

If you turn 18 you know you have to register.

If you move you know to have to register.

Even if you forget all that there is so much campaigning going on any sane person must realise they need to make sure they are registered.

To try to blame a particular party for someone not being on the Electrol list is quite frankly stupid.!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ostafunMan over a year ago

near ipswich

"Surely it's the individuals responsibility to make sure they are on the Electrol list.

You know way in advance when general and local elections are.

If you turn 18 you know you have to register.

If you move you know to have to register.

Even if you forget all that there is so much campaigning going on any sane person must realise they need to make sure they are registered.

To try to blame a particular party for someone not being on the Electrol list is quite frankly stupid.!

"
yep true but some people love trying to find stuff to kick the tories with.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Where the US leads we follow.

More major changes being introduced without adequate oversight whilst in the middle of a pandemic.

Up to 9 million voters, most likely to be non Tory voting, being left off the electoral roles in contradiction to recommendations.

There are many reasons for this but one major factors is at election times the tories are more organised at getting there core vote out.

Labour historically fail to do this,even if they win the argument if they do not get these people to vote they will not win.

I have worked with people in deprived areas and they say they do not vote because nobody cares about them.Well if the labour party does they should do something about it

Nevermind putting down to conspiracy look for real reasons.

Of course you will dismiss what I say I am sure

That's not really true is it?

You are telling me that in every general election, the Conservative party has had a higher share of the vote than Labour?

There's never been a non-Conservative government?

That's demonstrably untrue isn't it?

This is not a "conspiracy".

Why do you think that the Conservative party is changing the law so that Council's should not regularly check voter registration and therefore encourage engagement in democracy?

As a bonus question, why should it be Labour that engages "people in deprived areas" that say "they do not vote because nobody cares about them"?

Does the Tory Party not want to engage them for some reason?"

Lets make this simple.

Voter turn out is not the same as winning the vote. For example if we say that 90% of tory supporters turns out to vote but only 50% of labour supporters turned out to vote this does not equate to tories winning.

If tories had 10 supporters then 9 (90%) would have turned up to vote.

And if labour had 20 supporters then 10 (50%) would have turned up to vote and labour would win.

As for your last point, you previously claimed that the ending of reminders disproportionately affects labour voters, if you and labour want to stake claim for all of the non registered being labour supporters then damn right it is your problem to engage these people.

In reality the claim that they are labour supporters is as bogus as your logic. There are many reasons why people CHOOSE not to vote ranging from not feeling represented, apathy, protest, feeling ill informed or mislead and also not wanting to appear on the voters register to avoid debt collectors etc.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *kstallionMan over a year ago

milton keynes

"Surely it's the individuals responsibility to make sure they are on the Electrol list.

You know way in advance when general and local elections are.

If you turn 18 you know you have to register.

If you move you know to have to register.

Even if you forget all that there is so much campaigning going on any sane person must realise they need to make sure they are registered.

To try to blame a particular party for someone not being on the Electrol list is quite frankly stupid.!

Looking very much like getting the excuses in early in case Labour loose the next General election. Always got to be someone else's fault.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyuk OP Man over a year ago

West London

Once again way off the topic, either deliberately or out of ignorance.

Someone even claimed to have read the article

Major changes being introduced during a pandemic.

"between 8.3 and 9.4 million people are missing from the rolls, or wrongly registered, mainly the young, renters, in urban areas – those least likely to back Boris Johnson’s party.

They will now be excluded when the boundaries of parliamentary constituencies are redrawn for the next general election, potentially skewing the crucial process.

Does anyone think that this is a good thing?

"The parliamentary boundaries bill, currently before the Commons, will no longer slash the number of seats from 650 to 600 – after Tory backbench opposition – but will make big changes to the shape of seats.

Previously, the Boundary Commissions’ proposals would have been scrutinised and voted on by MPs, but they will now become law automatically – under a separate, also controversial switch."

No scrutiny. Is that a good thing?

Is anything that reduces voter engagement or turnout a good thing? Apparently for some it is. I don't know why though. Perhaps you could explain?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

If people cannot be bothered to register to vote the they cannot moan about it.

It’s real easy takes less than 5 mins online and the argument about not having access is bollux you can even get to an Internet cafe to do it

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Once again way off the topic, either deliberately or out of ignorance.

Someone even claimed to have read the article

Major changes being introduced during a pandemic.

"between 8.3 and 9.4 million people are missing from the rolls, or wrongly registered, mainly the young, renters, in urban areas – those least likely to back Boris Johnson’s party.

They will now be excluded when the boundaries of parliamentary constituencies are redrawn for the next general election, potentially skewing the crucial process.

Does anyone think that this is a good thing?

Previously, the Boundary Commissions’ proposals would have been scrutinised and voted on by MPs, but they will now become law automatically – under a separate, also controversial switch."

No scrutiny. Is that a good thing?

Is anything that reduces voter engagement or turnout a good thing? Apparently for some it is. I don't know why though. Perhaps you could explain?"

Makes a post about voting reminders being stopped and then complains people are going off topic when they reply and comment about it, and then changes the subject whilst ignoring and avoiding the points made on the topic he started...

Oh the irony!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ostafunMan over a year ago

near ipswich

"If people cannot be bothered to register to vote the they cannot moan about it.

It’s real easy takes less than 5 mins online and the argument about not having access is bollux you can even get to an Internet cafe to do it "
Free wifi at library,s too there really is no excuse not to register if you want to.Nice try with your usual Boris bashing posts but you really haven't thought this one through.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyuk OP Man over a year ago

West London

"Once again way off the topic, either deliberately or out of ignorance.

Someone even claimed to have read the article

Major changes being introduced during a pandemic.

"between 8.3 and 9.4 million people are missing from the rolls, or wrongly registered, mainly the young, renters, in urban areas – those least likely to back Boris Johnson’s party.

They will now be excluded when the boundaries of parliamentary constituencies are redrawn for the next general election, potentially skewing the crucial process.

Does anyone think that this is a good thing?

Previously, the Boundary Commissions’ proposals would have been scrutinised and voted on by MPs, but they will now become law automatically – under a separate, also controversial switch."

No scrutiny. Is that a good thing?

Is anything that reduces voter engagement or turnout a good thing? Apparently for some it is. I don't know why though. Perhaps you could explain?

Oh the irony!

Actually, that was a response to a specific post. Not the point of the thread.

Did you miss that?

Clearly the actual purpose of the thread is of no interest to you.

Understood

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyuk OP Man over a year ago

West London

"If people cannot be bothered to register to vote the they cannot moan about it.

It’s real easy takes less than 5 mins online and the argument about not having access is bollux you can even get to an Internet cafe to do it "

Yep, ignoring the point again.

I will take it that reducing voter engagement is fine by you.

Understood

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyuk OP Man over a year ago

West London

"If people cannot be bothered to register to vote the they cannot moan about it.

It’s real easy takes less than 5 mins online and the argument about not having access is bollux you can even get to an Internet cafe to do it Free wifi at library,s too there really is no excuse not to register if you want to.Nice try with your usual Boris bashing posts but you really haven't thought this one through.

Determinedly focusing on just one thing.

Not read the article then? Not responding to the direct quotes either?

Not a surprise

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"If people cannot be bothered to register to vote the they cannot moan about it.

It’s real easy takes less than 5 mins online and the argument about not having access is bollux you can even get to an Internet cafe to do it

Yep, ignoring the point again.

I will take it that reducing voter engagement is fine by you.

Understood

Like it or not there are a lot of people out there who just are not interested in politics and are just happy to get on with their lives because no matter who is in government nothing changes for them.

Not everyone wants to change the world

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *estivalMan over a year ago

borehamwood

young viters will be affected lol good one is this the same young voters that were gona sweep jezza into downing st? the same young viters who didnt bother voting in the referendum? they dont seem to bother wen like u claim its easier to get registerd than it will be in future.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ostafunMan over a year ago

near ipswich

"If people cannot be bothered to register to vote the they cannot moan about it.

Determinedly focusing on just one thing.

Not read the article then? Not responding to the direct quotes either?

Not a surprise

"
Yes i read it and have replied but i will repeat myself,there is nothing stopping people registering to vote.If people cant be bothered that is their problem not the governments,now if it was compulsory to vote like in Austria i would agree it would be up to the government to make sure everyone was registered but its not.If some lazy fuckers cant get off their arses (in fact they dont need to you can do it online) thats their problem not the governments.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Once again way off the topic, either deliberately or out of ignorance.

Someone even claimed to have read the article

Major changes being introduced during a pandemic.

"between 8.3 and 9.4 million people are missing from the rolls, or wrongly registered, mainly the young, renters, in urban areas – those least likely to back Boris Johnson’s party.

They will now be excluded when the boundaries of parliamentary constituencies are redrawn for the next general election, potentially skewing the crucial process.

Does anyone think that this is a good thing?

Previously, the Boundary Commissions’ proposals would have been scrutinised and voted on by MPs, but they will now become law automatically – under a separate, also controversial switch."

No scrutiny. Is that a good thing?

Is anything that reduces voter engagement or turnout a good thing? Apparently for some it is. I don't know why though. Perhaps you could explain?

Oh the irony!

Actually, that was a response to a specific post. Not the point of the thread.

Did you miss that?

Clearly the actual purpose of the thread is of no interest to you.

Understood

One thing, your first post and the point of this thread was about the 9m people being left of the register which in your very next post you made reference to, and stated your problem with them no longer receiving a reminder.

It couldn't be more on topic.

But you want to now shy away from it as it has been shown to be a load of guff..

Understood...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyuk OP Man over a year ago

West London

"If people cannot be bothered to register to vote the they cannot moan about it.

It’s real easy takes less than 5 mins online and the argument about not having access is bollux you can even get to an Internet cafe to do it

Yep, ignoring the point again.

I will take it that reducing voter engagement is fine by you.

Understood

Not everyone wants to change the world

So why are you posting on here? To tell me that?

Thank you so much

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyuk OP Man over a year ago

West London

"young viters will be affected lol good one is this the same young voters that were gona sweep jezza into downing st? the same young viters who didnt bother voting in the referendum? they dont seem to bother wen like u claim its easier to get registerd than it will be in future."

Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?

Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?

We can go from there

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyuk OP Man over a year ago

West London

"If people cannot be bothered to register to vote the they cannot moan about it.

Determinedly focusing on just one thing.

Not read the article then? Not responding to the direct quotes either?

Not a surprise

Yes i read it and have replied but i will repeat myself,there is nothing stopping people registering to vote.If people cant be bothered that is their problem not the governments,now if it was compulsory to vote like in Austria i would agree it would be up to the government to make sure everyone was registered but its not.If some lazy fuckers cant get off their arses (in fact they dont need to you can do it online) thats their problem not the governments."

Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?

Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?

Why so difficult to reply directly to a direct question?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyuk OP Man over a year ago

West London

"Once again way off the topic, either deliberately or out of ignorance.

Someone even claimed to have read the article

Major changes being introduced during a pandemic.

"between 8.3 and 9.4 million people are missing from the rolls, or wrongly registered, mainly the young, renters, in urban areas – those least likely to back Boris Johnson’s party.

They will now be excluded when the boundaries of parliamentary constituencies are redrawn for the next general election, potentially skewing the crucial process.

Does anyone think that this is a good thing?

Previously, the Boundary Commissions’ proposals would have been scrutinised and voted on by MPs, but they will now become law automatically – under a separate, also controversial switch."

No scrutiny. Is that a good thing?

Is anything that reduces voter engagement or turnout a good thing? Apparently for some it is. I don't know why though. Perhaps you could explain?

Oh the irony!

Actually, that was a response to a specific post. Not the point of the thread.

Did you miss that?

Clearly the actual purpose of the thread is of no interest to you.

Understood

It couldn't be more on topic.

But you want to now shy away from it as it has been shown to be a load of guff..

Understood...

The whole paragraph about major changes without Parliamentary oversight lost on you then?

My next post replied directly to a reply. That is correct isn't it?

Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?

Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Once again way off the topic, either deliberately or out of ignorance.

Someone even claimed to have read the article

Major changes being introduced during a pandemic.

"between 8.3 and 9.4 million people are missing from the rolls, or wrongly registered, mainly the young, renters, in urban areas – those least likely to back Boris Johnson’s party.

They will now be excluded when the boundaries of parliamentary constituencies are redrawn for the next general election, potentially skewing the crucial process.

Does anyone think that this is a good thing?

Previously, the Boundary Commissions’ proposals would have been scrutinised and voted on by MPs, but they will now become law automatically – under a separate, also controversial switch."

No scrutiny. Is that a good thing?

Is anything that reduces voter engagement or turnout a good thing? Apparently for some it is. I don't know why though. Perhaps you could explain?

Oh the irony!

Actually, that was a response to a specific post. Not the point of the thread.

Did you miss that?

Clearly the actual purpose of the thread is of no interest to you.

Understood

It couldn't be more on topic.

But you want to now shy away from it as it has been shown to be a load of guff..

Understood...

The whole paragraph about major changes without Parliamentary oversight lost on you then?

My next post replied directly to a reply. That is correct isn't it?

Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?

Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?

It was to a reply wanting clarification about what your point was...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ostafunMan over a year ago

near ipswich

"If people cannot be bothered to register to vote the they cannot moan about it.

Determinedly focusing on just one thing.

Not read the article then? Not responding to the direct quotes either?

Not a surprise

Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?

Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?

Why so difficult to reply directly to a direct question?

"
Governments are always redrawing bounderies whatever party and reducing mp,s can only be a good thing.Wish they could do it with the house of lords too.Reduced voter engagement is the voters fault its not hard to register.I dont know what data they are using do you? but would guess the last electoral roll which is pretty recent data as we have only recently had an election.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ebbie69Couple over a year ago

milton keynes

"Once again way off the topic, either deliberately or out of ignorance.

Someone even claimed to have read the article

Major changes being introduced during a pandemic.

"between 8.3 and 9.4 million people are missing from the rolls, or wrongly registered, mainly the young, renters, in urban areas – those least likely to back Boris Johnson’s party.

They will now be excluded when the boundaries of parliamentary constituencies are redrawn for the next general election, potentially skewing the crucial process.

Does anyone think that this is a good thing?

Previously, the Boundary Commissions’ proposals would have been scrutinised and voted on by MPs, but they will now become law automatically – under a separate, also controversial switch."

No scrutiny. Is that a good thing?

Is anything that reduces voter engagement or turnout a good thing? Apparently for some it is. I don't know why though. Perhaps you could explain?"

People missing of the register is not good. Why are they missing from the register? Is it all about the boundary changes and as you say no automatic reminders. I assume your point is the boundary has changed but there residence remained in the same place. Without a reminder how would they know? Please let me know if I misinterpreted

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyuk OP Man over a year ago

West London

"Once again way off the topic, either deliberately or out of ignorance.

Someone even claimed to have read the article

Major changes being introduced during a pandemic.

"between 8.3 and 9.4 million people are missing from the rolls, or wrongly registered, mainly the young, renters, in urban areas – those least likely to back Boris Johnson’s party.

They will now be excluded when the boundaries of parliamentary constituencies are redrawn for the next general election, potentially skewing the crucial process.

Does anyone think that this is a good thing?

Previously, the Boundary Commissions’ proposals would have been scrutinised and voted on by MPs, but they will now become law automatically – under a separate, also controversial switch."

No scrutiny. Is that a good thing?

Is anything that reduces voter engagement or turnout a good thing? Apparently for some it is. I don't know why though. Perhaps you could explain?

Oh the irony!

Actually, that was a response to a specific post. Not the point of the thread.

Did you miss that?

Clearly the actual purpose of the thread is of no interest to you.

Understood

It couldn't be more on topic.

But you want to now shy away from it as it has been shown to be a load of guff..

Understood...

The whole paragraph about major changes without Parliamentary oversight lost on you then?

My next post replied directly to a reply. That is correct isn't it?

Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?

Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?

It was to a reply wanting clarification about what your point was..."

Here we go. Find a minor point for a micro-victory

I took the poster to be referring to the second part of my post. That's what I responded to.

I have clarified. You are welcome

Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?

Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *estivalMan over a year ago

borehamwood

Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?

Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?

We can go from there

redrawing boundaries wat you meen like the last labour gov did to skew it in there favour they all do it.really think u should of started a new thread .u didnt like the answers you got so changed the question.like i told u before if peeps are to stupid to make sure there registerd thats there lookour.after all u need to be an adult to vote.if u get to 18 and still need ya hand holding well all hope is lost for ya

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyuk OP Man over a year ago

West London

"If people cannot be bothered to register to vote the they cannot moan about it.

Determinedly focusing on just one thing.

Not read the article then? Not responding to the direct quotes either?

Not a surprise

Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?

Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?

Why so difficult to reply directly to a direct question?

Governments are always redrawing bounderies whatever party and reducing mp,s can only be a good thing.Wish they could do it with the house of lords too.Reduced voter engagement is the voters fault its not hard to register.I dont know what data they are using do you? but would guess the last electoral roll which is pretty recent data as we have only recently had an election. "

MP numbers are not being reduced.

Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data a good thing?

Is no Parliamentary oversight of this process a good thing?

Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?

Why so difficult to answer directly? Yes/no would actually be fine

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *kstallionMan over a year ago

milton keynes

"If people cannot be bothered to register to vote the they cannot moan about it.

Determinedly focusing on just one thing.

Not read the article then? Not responding to the direct quotes either?

Not a surprise

Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?

Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?

Why so difficult to reply directly to a direct question?

MP numbers are not being reduced.

Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data a good thing?

Is no Parliamentary oversight of this process a good thing?

Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?

Why so difficult to answer directly? Yes/no would actually be fine

Who exactly is redrawing the constituency boundaries. Is it mp's or civil service?

Are they free to make it up as they please or do they have to work within set parameters?

Who is stopping people who want to vote making sure they are able to vote?

Parliamentary oversight is preferable yes.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ostafunMan over a year ago

near ipswich

"If people cannot be bothered to register to vote the they cannot moan about it.

Determinedly focusing on just one thing.

Not read the article then? Not responding to the direct quotes either?

Not a surprise

Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?

Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?

Why so difficult to reply directly to a direct question?

MP numbers are not being reduced.

Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data a good thing?

Is no Parliamentary oversight of this process a good thing?

Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?

Why so difficult to answer directly? Yes/no would actually be fine

"
First tell me how voter engagement is being reduced?When an election is called everyone has the opportunity to register to vote yes or no?/.If you boundary has been redrawn does that stop you from registering to voter yes or no? Do you think that local councils should beable to access your data from various government sources yes or no?.The data protection tin foil hats would be having a field day ffs.So please explain how this is going to affect anyone who wants to vote in the next council or general election as it seems to me you are convinced that 9 million people will not be eligible to vote which i would say in the uk is illegal and would cause a law suit and a void election.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyuk OP Man over a year ago

West London

Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?

Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?

We can go from there

Actually, it's not a matter of liking the answers or not. It's about them only covering part of the article.

You don't vote so aren't interested anyway, right?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Once again way off the topic, either deliberately or out of ignorance.

Someone even claimed to have read the article

Major changes being introduced during a pandemic.

"between 8.3 and 9.4 million people are missing from the rolls, or wrongly registered, mainly the young, renters, in urban areas – those least likely to back Boris Johnson’s party.

They will now be excluded when the boundaries of parliamentary constituencies are redrawn for the next general election, potentially skewing the crucial process.

Does anyone think that this is a good thing?

Previously, the Boundary Commissions’ proposals would have been scrutinised and voted on by MPs, but they will now become law automatically – under a separate, also controversial switch."

No scrutiny. Is that a good thing?

Is anything that reduces voter engagement or turnout a good thing? Apparently for some it is. I don't know why though. Perhaps you could explain?

Oh the irony!

Actually, that was a response to a specific post. Not the point of the thread.

Did you miss that?

Clearly the actual purpose of the thread is of no interest to you.

Understood

It couldn't be more on topic.

But you want to now shy away from it as it has been shown to be a load of guff..

Understood...

The whole paragraph about major changes without Parliamentary oversight lost on you then?

My next post replied directly to a reply. That is correct isn't it?

Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?

Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?

It was to a reply wanting clarification about what your point was...

Here we go. Find a minor point for a micro-victory

I took the poster to be referring to the second part of my post. That's what I responded to.

I have clarified. You are welcome

Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?

Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?

Yes, you did clarify your point, which you have just confirmed was actually your point. You know, the point you previously declared as not being your point and its discission as being off topic..

You can call it "finding a minor point for a micro-victory", i will call it the culmination of me dealing your spurious accusations and assertions trying to deny your hypocrisy and your diversionary tactics.

With regard to your latest (diversionary) questions, is reduced votor engagement a good thing?

No, its not. However you are claiming that not sending a reminder to peole that already do not vote is suppressing them. Newsflash - they have already made their descision, and if they have already ignored the many other reminders such as wall to wall media coverage, party political broadcasts, doorsteppers, social media posts etc etc, then a letter is going to make no difference. Also, NOBODY can claim they didnt know an election was happening (for the reasons i have just mentioned). And it is common knowledge that you need to register, the process is thoroughly advertised and explained.

As for boundry changes, if you want to claim it as nefarious feel free. However if this is true it could be considered as combatting labours attempt to skew in their favour by doing the same thing.

So, either both parties are guilty of the same or it is simply part of standard political process.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

So let's get this right not reminding people to vote means fewer labour voters, and Tories could win by default. But didn't Tories win because labour voters voted for them, only saying.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *estivalMan over a year ago

borehamwood

Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?

Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?

We can go from there

Actually, it's not a matter of liking the answers or not. It's about them only covering part of the article.

You don't vote so aren't interested anyway, right?

"
the op of yours is nothing to do with boundary changes you threw that in when the majority of posters didnt give the answer you wanted but the answer is the answer is the same for the nxt question to.if you wana vote then register if like me you dont then dont register if you are that stupid to not know how to register then u probably shouldnt be voting anyway anyone that stupid will be to easy to manipulate.you know like all those brexit voters

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyuk OP Man over a year ago

West London

"Once again way off the topic, either deliberately or out of ignorance.

Someone even claimed to have read the article

Major changes being introduced during a pandemic.

"between 8.3 and 9.4 million people are missing from the rolls, or wrongly registered, mainly the young, renters, in urban areas – those least likely to back Boris Johnson’s party.

They will now be excluded when the boundaries of parliamentary constituencies are redrawn for the next general election, potentially skewing the crucial process.

Does anyone think that this is a good thing?

Previously, the Boundary Commissions’ proposals would have been scrutinised and voted on by MPs, but they will now become law automatically – under a separate, also controversial switch."

No scrutiny. Is that a good thing?

Is anything that reduces voter engagement or turnout a good thing? Apparently for some it is. I don't know why though. Perhaps you could explain?

Oh the irony!

Actually, that was a response to a specific post. Not the point of the thread.

Did you miss that?

Clearly the actual purpose of the thread is of no interest to you.

Understood

It couldn't be more on topic.

But you want to now shy away from it as it has been shown to be a load of guff..

Understood...

The whole paragraph about major changes without Parliamentary oversight lost on you then?

My next post replied directly to a reply. That is correct isn't it?

Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?

Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?

It was to a reply wanting clarification about what your point was...

Here we go. Find a minor point for a micro-victory

I took the poster to be referring to the second part of my post. That's what I responded to.

I have clarified. You are welcome

Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?

Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?

Yes, you did clarify your point, which you have just confirmed was actually your point. You know, the point you previously declared as not being your point and its discission as being off topic..

With regard to your latest (diversionary) questions, is reduced votor engagement a good thing?

As for boundry changes, if you want to claim it as nefarious feel free. However if this is true it could be considered as combatting labours attempt to skew in their favour by doing the same thing.

So, either both parties are guilty of the same or it is simply part of standard political process."

I'm diverting people from the thread that I posted?

Sure. What else would you like to tell me that I'm thinking?

One of the things that I noted was that not sending reminders about voting does have an effect on reducing participation in elections.

If you or anyone else chooses to believe that this is fine then that's fine. However, as those who move most regularly and are therefore most likely to find this reminder useful are those who tend not to vote for the party in power.

Stopping this activity also means these groups will also be under represented when creating the new cinstituency boundaries.

When were boundaries last changed? How did they screw the results to prevent another Conservative victory, two (and a half) times?

Why no reduction in seats as recommended?

Why no oversight?

I'm not particularly a Labour supporter, not was I especially critical of the Conservative party until the last few years.

Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?

Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyuk OP Man over a year ago

West London

"So let's get this right not reminding people to vote means fewer labour voters, and Tories could win by default. But didn't Tories win because labour voters voted for them, only saying. "

Let's get it right:

Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?

Is reduced voting a good thing?

I mentioned nothing about Tories winning by default. Tories won as much by Labour voters not voting as voting for them. As a matter of fact.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyuk OP Man over a year ago

West London

"If people cannot be bothered to register to vote the they cannot moan about it.

Determinedly focusing on just one thing.

Not read the article then? Not responding to the direct quotes either?

Not a surprise

Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?

Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?

Why so difficult to reply directly to a direct question?

MP numbers are not being reduced.

Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data a good thing?

Is no Parliamentary oversight of this process a good thing?

Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?

Why so difficult to answer directly? Yes/no would actually be fine

First tell me how voter engagement is being reduced?When an election is called everyone has the opportunity to register to vote yes or no?/.If you boundary has been redrawn does that stop you from registering to voter yes or no? Do you think that local councils should beable to access your data from various government sources yes or no?.The data protection tin foil hats would be having a field day ffs.So please explain how this is going to affect anyone who wants to vote in the next council or general election as it seems to me you are convinced that 9 million people will not be eligible to vote which i would say in the uk is illegal and would cause a law suit and a void election. "

What is the purpose of redrawing boundaries?

If you do not have the correct information for who is in a constituency now, how do you redraw it?

The mailing to every residence is absolutely the most accurate method of measuring voter numbers, not inferring from other data.

I wrote nothing about not being eligible to vote.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyuk OP Man over a year ago

West London

Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?

Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?

We can go from there

Actually, it's not a matter of liking the answers or not. It's about them only covering part of the article.

You don't vote so aren't interested anyway, right?

the op of yours is nothing to do with boundary changes you threw that in when the majority of posters didnt give the answer you wanted but the answer is the answer is the same for the nxt question to.if you wana vote then register if like me you dont then dont register if you are that stupid to not know how to register then u probably shouldnt be voting anyway anyone that stupid will be to easy to manipulate.you know like all those brexit voters"

Sure. You're right. Of course you are

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *kstallionMan over a year ago

milton keynes

"If people cannot be bothered to register to vote the they cannot moan about it.

Determinedly focusing on just one thing.

Not read the article then? Not responding to the direct quotes either?

Not a surprise

Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?

Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?

Why so difficult to reply directly to a direct question?

MP numbers are not being reduced.

Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data a good thing?

Is no Parliamentary oversight of this process a good thing?

Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?

Why so difficult to answer directly? Yes/no would actually be fine

What is the purpose of redrawing boundaries?

If you do not have the correct information for who is in a constituency now, how do you redraw it?

The mailing to every residence is absolutely the most accurate method of measuring voter numbers, not inferring from other data.

I wrote nothing about not being eligible to vote."

Surely there are rules on size of each constituency which limits possible boundary changes. Is it not a commission that works on such things? Who stops people registering to vote? If they want to vote its perfectly accessible for all and more than well publicized

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Once again way off the topic, either deliberately or out of ignorance.

Someone even claimed to have read the article

Major changes being introduced during a pandemic.

"between 8.3 and 9.4 million people are missing from the rolls, or wrongly registered, mainly the young, renters, in urban areas – those least likely to back Boris Johnson’s party.

They will now be excluded when the boundaries of parliamentary constituencies are redrawn for the next general election, potentially skewing the crucial process.

Does anyone think that this is a good thing?

Previously, the Boundary Commissions’ proposals would have been scrutinised and voted on by MPs, but they will now become law automatically – under a separate, also controversial switch."

No scrutiny. Is that a good thing?

Is anything that reduces voter engagement or turnout a good thing? Apparently for some it is. I don't know why though. Perhaps you could explain?

Oh the irony!

Actually, that was a response to a specific post. Not the point of the thread.

Did you miss that?

Clearly the actual purpose of the thread is of no interest to you.

Understood

It couldn't be more on topic.

But you want to now shy away from it as it has been shown to be a load of guff..

Understood...

The whole paragraph about major changes without Parliamentary oversight lost on you then?

My next post replied directly to a reply. That is correct isn't it?

Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?

Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?

It was to a reply wanting clarification about what your point was...

Here we go. Find a minor point for a micro-victory

I took the poster to be referring to the second part of my post. That's what I responded to.

I have clarified. You are welcome

Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?

Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?

Yes, you did clarify your point, which you have just confirmed was actually your point. You know, the point you previously declared as not being your point and its discission as being off topic..

With regard to your latest (diversionary) questions, is reduced votor engagement a good thing?

As for boundry changes, if you want to claim it as nefarious feel free. However if this is true it could be considered as combatting labours attempt to skew in their favour by doing the same thing.

So, either both parties are guilty of the same or it is simply part of standard political process.

I'm diverting people from the thread that I posted?

Sure. What else would you like to tell me that I'm thinking?

One of the things that I noted was that not sending reminders about voting does have an effect on reducing participation in elections.

Stopping this activity also means these groups will also be under represented when creating the new cinstituency boundaries.

When were boundaries last changed? How did they screw the results to prevent another Conservative victory, two (and a half) times?

Why no reduction in seats as recommended?

Why no oversight?

I'm not particularly a Labour supporter, not was I especially critical of the Conservative party until the last few years.

Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?

Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?"

Yes, you are diverting away from your own topic. Im not guessing what you are thinking, the topic of this thread is there for every one to see for themselves, i have given plenty of irrefutable evidence for my statement and on top of that, you confirmed it yourself as i pointed out in my last post.

As for the rest of your post, I have answered the two questions you are parroting to everyone, with regards to the rest i will just say that claiming that people that move house are not tory voters is laughable and also refer you back to the points i made (and you repeatedly ignored) about the letter being insignificant when there are so many other reminders to vote.

Not voting is a choice, not a mistake.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyuk OP Man over a year ago

West London

"If people cannot be bothered to register to vote the they cannot moan about it.

Determinedly focusing on just one thing.

Not read the article then? Not responding to the direct quotes either?

Not a surprise

Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?

Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?

Why so difficult to reply directly to a direct question?

MP numbers are not being reduced.

Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data a good thing?

Is no Parliamentary oversight of this process a good thing?

Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?

Why so difficult to answer directly? Yes/no would actually be fine

What is the purpose of redrawing boundaries?

If you do not have the correct information for who is in a constituency now, how do you redraw it?

The mailing to every residence is absolutely the most accurate method of measuring voter numbers, not inferring from other data.

I wrote nothing about not being eligible to vote.

The Boundary Comission works to the terms that it is given and uses the data that it had available.

If it has less accurate data available it can less accurately draw boundaries.

Does that make logical sense?

I said nothing about people being prevented from voting.

I think that any process that makes it more likely that someone to vote is preferable for one that does not.

What do you think?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *kstallionMan over a year ago

milton keynes

"If people cannot be bothered to register to vote the they cannot moan about it.

Determinedly focusing on just one thing.

Not read the article then? Not responding to the direct quotes either?

Not a surprise

Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?

Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?

Why so difficult to reply directly to a direct question?

MP numbers are not being reduced.

Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data a good thing?

Is no Parliamentary oversight of this process a good thing?

Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?

Why so difficult to answer directly? Yes/no would actually be fine

What is the purpose of redrawing boundaries?

If you do not have the correct information for who is in a constituency now, how do you redraw it?

The mailing to every residence is absolutely the most accurate method of measuring voter numbers, not inferring from other data.

I wrote nothing about not being eligible to vote.

The Boundary Comission works to the terms that it is given and uses the data that it had available.

If it has less accurate data available it can less accurately draw boundaries.

Does that make logical sense?

I said nothing about people being prevented from voting.

I think that any process that makes it more likely that someone to vote is preferable for one that does not.

What do you think?"

So they work within set parameters?

What data is inaccurate before they decide on boundaries?

Whatever constituency you happen to fall in it does not stop you registering. Even if yours changes you just register in your new one. If in doubt check.

Why does it affect Labour differently to other parties

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyuk OP Man over a year ago

West London

"No, its not. However you are claiming that not sending a reminder to peole that already do not vote is suppressing them. Newsflash - they have already made their descision, and if they have already ignored the many other reminders such as wall to wall media coverage, party political broadcasts, doorsteppers, social media posts etc etc, then a letter is going to make no difference. Also, NOBODY can claim they didnt know an election was happening (for the reasons i have just mentioned). And it is common knowledge that you need to register, the process is thoroughly advertised and explained.

As for boundry changes, if you want to claim it as nefarious feel free. However if this is true it could be considered as combatting labours attempt to skew in their favour by doing the same thing.

So, either both parties are guilty of the same or it is simply part of standard political process.

I'm diverting people from the thread that I posted?

Sure. What else would you like to tell me that I'm thinking?

One of the things that I noted was that not sending reminders about voting does have an effect on reducing participation in elections.

Stopping this activity also means these groups will also be under represented when creating the new cinstituency boundaries.

When were boundaries last changed? How did they screw the results to prevent another Conservative victory, two (and a half) times?

Why no reduction in seats as recommended?

Why no oversight?

I'm not particularly a Labour supporter, not was I especially critical of the Conservative party until the last few years.

Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?

Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?

Not voting is a choice, not a mistake."

You are telling me what my thoughts are again?

Thanks

You haven't given any "irrefutable evidence". You have just made assertions.

Provide some actual evidence. A reference. Some data. Anything that actually qualifies as evidence. Your opinion is just your opinion.

Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?

"As for boundry changes, if you want to claim it as nefarious feel free. However if this is true it could be considered as combatting labours attempt to skew in their favour by doing the same thing."

So is that yes it's a good idea or no it isn't? You also don't seem to know when the last boundary change was or how that has prevented any other party from being elected to power.

Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?

"NOBODY can claim they didnt know an election was happening"

I think that any process that makes it more likely that someone to vote is preferable for one that does not.

What do you think?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyuk OP Man over a year ago

West London

"If people cannot be bothered to register to vote the they cannot moan about it.

Determinedly focusing on just one thing.

Not read the article then? Not responding to the direct quotes either?

Not a surprise

Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?

Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?

Why so difficult to reply directly to a direct question?

MP numbers are not being reduced.

Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data a good thing?

Is no Parliamentary oversight of this process a good thing?

Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?

Why so difficult to answer directly? Yes/no would actually be fine

What is the purpose of redrawing boundaries?

If you do not have the correct information for who is in a constituency now, how do you redraw it?

The mailing to every residence is absolutely the most accurate method of measuring voter numbers, not inferring from other data.

I wrote nothing about not being eligible to vote.

The Boundary Comission works to the terms that it is given and uses the data that it had available.

If it has less accurate data available it can less accurately draw boundaries.

Does that make logical sense?

I said nothing about people being prevented from voting.

I think that any process that makes it more likely that someone to vote is preferable for one that does not.

What do you think?

So they work within set parameters?

What data is inaccurate before they decide on boundaries?

Whatever constituency you happen to fall in it does not stop you registering. Even if yours changes you just register in your new one. If in doubt check.

Why does it affect Labour differently to other parties"

Does it make logical sense that the most accurate voter data now will provide the best information for redrawing boundaries?

That's a completely neutral question. You must be able to answer that directly.

If you are not recording 9 million voters then you cannot draw boundaries correctly right?

I said nothing anywhere about being prevented from voting.

Once again, I think that any process that makes it more likely that someone to vote is preferable for one that does not.

What do you think?

I didn't mention Labour. I said that reduction in the votes of the young or the poor tended to favour the Tory party.

Do you disagree?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyuk OP Man over a year ago

West London

"Once again way off the topic, either deliberately or out of ignorance.

Someone even claimed to have read the article

Major changes being introduced during a pandemic.

"between 8.3 and 9.4 million people are missing from the rolls, or wrongly registered, mainly the young, renters, in urban areas – those least likely to back Boris Johnson’s party.

They will now be excluded when the boundaries of parliamentary constituencies are redrawn for the next general election, potentially skewing the crucial process.

Does anyone think that this is a good thing?

Previously, the Boundary Commissions’ proposals would have been scrutinised and voted on by MPs, but they will now become law automatically – under a separate, also controversial switch."

No scrutiny. Is that a good thing?

Is anything that reduces voter engagement or turnout a good thing? Apparently for some it is. I don't know why though. Perhaps you could explain?

People are missing from the register because they move.

Direct mailing corrects that.

Not sending this will reduce registration.

You could also send a link to voter registration when people transfer their phone number or utilities. It is not being proposed as a substitute.

What I'm actually discussing is that over time populations move and constituencies no longer contain similar numbers of people.

Boundaries are then redrawn, bit if you've removed the most accurate method of knowing who is eligible to vote in a constituency you know longer have accurate information for redrawing those boundaries.

There is also a side effect, deliberate or not, of those most likely to mid registering as being poor or young as they move most frequently.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *kstallionMan over a year ago

milton keynes

"If people cannot be bothered to register to vote the they cannot moan about it.

Determinedly focusing on just one thing.

Not read the article then? Not responding to the direct quotes either?

Not a surprise

Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?

Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?

Why so difficult to reply directly to a direct question?

MP numbers are not being reduced.

Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data a good thing?

Is no Parliamentary oversight of this process a good thing?

Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?

Why so difficult to answer directly? Yes/no would actually be fine

What is the purpose of redrawing boundaries?

If you do not have the correct information for who is in a constituency now, how do you redraw it?

The mailing to every residence is absolutely the most accurate method of measuring voter numbers, not inferring from other data.

I wrote nothing about not being eligible to vote.

The Boundary Comission works to the terms that it is given and uses the data that it had available.

If it has less accurate data available it can less accurately draw boundaries.

Does that make logical sense?

I said nothing about people being prevented from voting.

I think that any process that makes it more likely that someone to vote is preferable for one that does not.

What do you think?

So they work within set parameters?

What data is inaccurate before they decide on boundaries?

Whatever constituency you happen to fall in it does not stop you registering. Even if yours changes you just register in your new one. If in doubt check.

Why does it affect Labour differently to other parties

Does it make logical sense that the most accurate voter data now will provide the best information for redrawing boundaries?

That's a completely neutral question. You must be able to answer that directly.

If you are not recording 9 million voters then you cannot draw boundaries correctly right?

I said nothing anywhere about being prevented from voting.

Once again, I think that any process that makes it more likely that someone to vote is preferable for one that does not.

What do you think?

I didn't mention Labour. I said that reduction in the votes of the young or the poor tended to favour the Tory party.

Do you disagree?"

I did not say accurate data is not good. I asked what data is inaccurate BEFORE the boundary changes. So are you saying 9 million are not recorded before the boundary changes or will be after?. It's the individuals responsibility to make sure they are registered. If they do that then there is no problem. If they don't do it then it's down to them. Why do you say the poor and young will be affected more? Yes I disagree with you as I believe people have to take responsibility of their actions or in actions

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

As for boundry changes, if you want to claim it as nefarious feel free. However if this is true it could be considered as combatting labours attempt to skew in their favour by doing the same thing.

So, either both parties are guilty of the same or it is simply part of standard political process.

I'm diverting people from the thread that I posted?

Sure. What else would you like to tell me that I'm thinking?

One of the things that I noted was that not sending reminders about voting does have an effect on reducing participation in elections.

Stopping this activity also means these groups will also be under represented when creating the new cinstituency boundaries.

When were boundaries last changed? How did they screw the results to prevent another Conservative victory, two (and a half) times?

Why no reduction in seats as recommended?

Why no oversight?

I'm not particularly a Labour supporter, not was I especially critical of the Conservative party until the last few years.

Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?

Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?

Not voting is a choice, not a mistake.

You are telling me what my thoughts are again?

Thanks

You haven't given any "irrefutable evidence". You have just made assertions.

Provide some actual evidence. A reference. Some data. Anything that actually qualifies as evidence. Your opinion is just your opinion.

Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?

"As for boundry changes, if you want to claim it as nefarious feel free. However if this is true it could be considered as combatting labours attempt to skew in their favour by doing the same thing."

So is that yes it's a good idea or no it isn't? You also don't seem to know when the last boundary change was or how that has prevented any other party from being elected to power.

Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?

"NOBODY can claim they didnt know an election was happening"

I think that any process that makes it more likely that someone to vote is preferable for one that does not.

What do you think?"

How am i telling you your thoughts?

I have simply proven, using your own words and posts, that you where lying when you claimed the post was not about postal reminders. This is irrefutable. If you want to claim that this is not what you meant then your words betray you, as does your initial engagement on the subject.

Your latest post is nothing more than garbaled piffle.

Trying to imply that i answered your question about voter engagement with the line you quoted is a demonstrable lie. I answered it directly and the post is again, there for all to see. The line you quoted was completely unrelated and you trying to misapropriate it is indicative of your underhanded debating technique.

It, is not my opinion that its not only labour voters that move house, it is an obvious fact with no proof needed.

It is not my opinion that the postal reminder is not the only (or main) reminder to register to vote. It is an obvious fact, no proof is needed, everyone had seen the party political broadcasts, incessant media coverage, leaflets, and social media circus etc at election time.

The proof of my claim you are avoiding points is the glaring absence of your response to them.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyuk OP Man over a year ago

West London

As for boundry changes, if you want to claim it as nefarious feel free. However if this is true it could be considered as combatting labours attempt to skew in their favour by doing the same thing.

So, either both parties are guilty of the same or it is simply part of standard political process.

I'm diverting people from the thread that I posted?

Sure. What else would you like to tell me that I'm thinking?

One of the things that I noted was that not sending reminders about voting does have an effect on reducing participation in elections.

Stopping this activity also means these groups will also be under represented when creating the new cinstituency boundaries.

When were boundaries last changed? How did they screw the results to prevent another Conservative victory, two (and a half) times?

Why no reduction in seats as recommended?

Why no oversight?

I'm not particularly a Labour supporter, not was I especially critical of the Conservative party until the last few years.

Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?

Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?

Not voting is a choice, not a mistake.

You are telling me what my thoughts are again?

Thanks

You haven't given any "irrefutable evidence". You have just made assertions.

Provide some actual evidence. A reference. Some data. Anything that actually qualifies as evidence. Your opinion is just your opinion.

Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?

"As for boundry changes, if you want to claim it as nefarious feel free. However if this is true it could be considered as combatting labours attempt to skew in their favour by doing the same thing."

So is that yes it's a good idea or no it isn't? You also don't seem to know when the last boundary change was or how that has prevented any other party from being elected to power.

Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?

"NOBODY can claim they didnt know an election was happening"

I think that any process that makes it more likely that someone to vote is preferable for one that does not.

What do you think?

How am i telling you your thoughts?

Your latest post is nothing more than garbaled piffle.

It, is not my opinion that its not only labour voters that move house, it is an obvious fact with no proof needed.

The proof of my claim you are avoiding points is the glaring absence of your response to them.

Your repeated opinion is neither proof not evidence.

Discussing one aspect of a thread in a few posts is neither distraction nor lies.

You are persistent though

I didn't write that "only" Labour supporters move house. I never even mentioned the party except in response to others.

I did not say that voter registration documents were the "only" way of reminding people to register to vote.

You can continue to have a parallel "argument" about whatever you like and claim that you have "won" whatever you wish as you are making up your own thread.

Why don't you start your own, then you can tell everyone what they really meant when they write something

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyuk OP Man over a year ago

West London

"If people cannot be bothered to register to vote the they cannot moan about it.

Determinedly focusing on just one thing.

Not read the article then? Not responding to the direct quotes either?

Not a surprise

Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?

Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?

Why so difficult to reply directly to a direct question?

MP numbers are not being reduced.

Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data a good thing?

Is no Parliamentary oversight of this process a good thing?

Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?

Why so difficult to answer directly? Yes/no would actually be fine

What is the purpose of redrawing boundaries?

If you do not have the correct information for who is in a constituency now, how do you redraw it?

The mailing to every residence is absolutely the most accurate method of measuring voter numbers, not inferring from other data.

I wrote nothing about not being eligible to vote.

The Boundary Comission works to the terms that it is given and uses the data that it had available.

If it has less accurate data available it can less accurately draw boundaries.

Does that make logical sense?

I said nothing about people being prevented from voting.

I think that any process that makes it more likely that someone to vote is preferable for one that does not.

What do you think?

So they work within set parameters?

What data is inaccurate before they decide on boundaries?

Whatever constituency you happen to fall in it does not stop you registering. Even if yours changes you just register in your new one. If in doubt check.

Why does it affect Labour differently to other parties

Does it make logical sense that the most accurate voter data now will provide the best information for redrawing boundaries?

That's a completely neutral question. You must be able to answer that directly.

If you are not recording 9 million voters then you cannot draw boundaries correctly right?

I said nothing anywhere about being prevented from voting.

Once again, I think that any process that makes it more likely that someone to vote is preferable for one that does not.

What do you think?

I didn't mention Labour. I said that reduction in the votes of the young or the poor tended to favour the Tory party.

Do you disagree?

There is a separate discussion about people's responsibility to register to vote if they wish and even distribution of population within a constituency.

You and I disagree over it being an inherent good that more people should vote. Fine.

Yes, several million people could be missing from voter registration. That is, undoubtedly, a maximum. That is because the paper system catches a lot of people who may otherwise not get around to registration because it is not an immediate priority and can easily be put off and forgotten.

If you don't believe that, then again how you view normal behaviour and priorities, particularly of younger people, is very different to my own.

The paper system currently maximises the accuracy of electoral data. Without replacing or supplementing this process then the data will be less accurate.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

As for boundry changes, if you want to claim it as nefarious feel free. However if this is true it could be considered as combatting labours attempt to skew in their favour by doing the same thing.

So, either both parties are guilty of the same or it is simply part of standard political process.

I'm diverting people from the thread that I posted?

Sure. What else would you like to tell me that I'm thinking?

One of the things that I noted was that not sending reminders about voting does have an effect on reducing participation in elections.

Stopping this activity also means these groups will also be under represented when creating the new cinstituency boundaries.

When were boundaries last changed? How did they screw the results to prevent another Conservative victory, two (and a half) times?

Why no reduction in seats as recommended?

Why no oversight?

I'm not particularly a Labour supporter, not was I especially critical of the Conservative party until the last few years.

Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?

Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?

Not voting is a choice, not a mistake.

You are telling me what my thoughts are again?

Thanks

You haven't given any "irrefutable evidence". You have just made assertions.

Provide some actual evidence. A reference. Some data. Anything that actually qualifies as evidence. Your opinion is just your opinion.

Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?

"As for boundry changes, if you want to claim it as nefarious feel free. However if this is true it could be considered as combatting labours attempt to skew in their favour by doing the same thing."

So is that yes it's a good idea or no it isn't? You also don't seem to know when the last boundary change was or how that has prevented any other party from being elected to power.

Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?

"NOBODY can claim they didnt know an election was happening"

I think that any process that makes it more likely that someone to vote is preferable for one that does not.

What do you think?

How am i telling you your thoughts?

Your latest post is nothing more than garbaled piffle.

It, is not my opinion that its not only labour voters that move house, it is an obvious fact with no proof needed.

The proof of my claim you are avoiding points is the glaring absence of your response to them.

Your repeated opinion is neither proof not evidence.

Discussing one aspect of a thread in a few posts is neither distraction nor lies.

You are persistent though

I didn't write that "only" Labour supporters move house. I never even mentioned the party except in response to others.

I did not say that voter registration documents were the "only" way of reminding people to register to vote.

You can continue to have a parallel "argument" about whatever you like and claim that you have "won" whatever you wish as you are making up your own thread.

Why don't you start your own, then you can tell everyone what they really meant when they write something

It is not a parallel argument, it is the argument that you started but are trying to distance yourself from. As I have evidenced, and others have noticed and stated.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyuk OP Man over a year ago

West London

As for boundry changes, if you want to claim it as nefarious feel free. However if this is true it could be considered as combatting labours attempt to skew in their favour by doing the same thing.

So, either both parties are guilty of the same or it is simply part of standard political process.

I'm diverting people from the thread that I posted?

Sure. What else would you like to tell me that I'm thinking?

One of the things that I noted was that not sending reminders about voting does have an effect on reducing participation in elections.

Stopping this activity also means these groups will also be under represented when creating the new cinstituency boundaries.

When were boundaries last changed? How did they screw the results to prevent another Conservative victory, two (and a half) times?

Why no reduction in seats as recommended?

Why no oversight?

I'm not particularly a Labour supporter, not was I especially critical of the Conservative party until the last few years.

Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?

Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?

Not voting is a choice, not a mistake.

You are telling me what my thoughts are again?

Thanks

You haven't given any "irrefutable evidence". You have just made assertions.

Provide some actual evidence. A reference. Some data. Anything that actually qualifies as evidence. Your opinion is just your opinion.

Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?

"As for boundry changes, if you want to claim it as nefarious feel free. However if this is true it could be considered as combatting labours attempt to skew in their favour by doing the same thing."

So is that yes it's a good idea or no it isn't? You also don't seem to know when the last boundary change was or how that has prevented any other party from being elected to power.

Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?

"NOBODY can claim they didnt know an election was happening"

I think that any process that makes it more likely that someone to vote is preferable for one that does not.

What do you think?

How am i telling you your thoughts?

Your latest post is nothing more than garbaled piffle.

It, is not my opinion that its not only labour voters that move house, it is an obvious fact with no proof needed.

The proof of my claim you are avoiding points is the glaring absence of your response to them.

Your repeated opinion is neither proof not evidence.

Discussing one aspect of a thread in a few posts is neither distraction nor lies.

You are persistent though

I didn't write that "only" Labour supporters move house. I never even mentioned the party except in response to others.

I did not say that voter registration documents were the "only" way of reminding people to register to vote.

You can continue to have a parallel "argument" about whatever you like and claim that you have "won" whatever you wish as you are making up your own thread.

Why don't you start your own, then you can tell everyone what they really meant when they write something

It is not a parallel argument, it is the argument that you started but are trying to distance yourself from. As I have evidenced, and others have noticed and stated.

Opinion does not equal evidence.

Your demands and questions answered as directly as possible. Mine not so much

Yawn.

Last word to you as you can't help yourself

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

As for boundry changes, if you want to claim it as nefarious feel free. However if this is true it could be considered as combatting labours attempt to skew in their favour by doing the same thing.

So, either both parties are guilty of the same or it is simply part of standard political process.

I'm diverting people from the thread that I posted?

Sure. What else would you like to tell me that I'm thinking?

One of the things that I noted was that not sending reminders about voting does have an effect on reducing participation in elections.

Stopping this activity also means these groups will also be under represented when creating the new cinstituency boundaries.

When were boundaries last changed? How did they screw the results to prevent another Conservative victory, two (and a half) times?

Why no reduction in seats as recommended?

Why no oversight?

I'm not particularly a Labour supporter, not was I especially critical of the Conservative party until the last few years.

Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?

Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?

Not voting is a choice, not a mistake.

You are telling me what my thoughts are again?

Thanks

You haven't given any "irrefutable evidence". You have just made assertions.

Provide some actual evidence. A reference. Some data. Anything that actually qualifies as evidence. Your opinion is just your opinion.

Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?

"As for boundry changes, if you want to claim it as nefarious feel free. However if this is true it could be considered as combatting labours attempt to skew in their favour by doing the same thing."

So is that yes it's a good idea or no it isn't? You also don't seem to know when the last boundary change was or how that has prevented any other party from being elected to power.

Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?

"NOBODY can claim they didnt know an election was happening"

I think that any process that makes it more likely that someone to vote is preferable for one that does not.

What do you think?

How am i telling you your thoughts?

Your latest post is nothing more than garbaled piffle.

It, is not my opinion that its not only labour voters that move house, it is an obvious fact with no proof needed.

The proof of my claim you are avoiding points is the glaring absence of your response to them.

Your repeated opinion is neither proof not evidence.

Discussing one aspect of a thread in a few posts is neither distraction nor lies.

You are persistent though

I didn't write that "only" Labour supporters move house. I never even mentioned the party except in response to others.

I did not say that voter registration documents were the "only" way of reminding people to register to vote.

You can continue to have a parallel "argument" about whatever you like and claim that you have "won" whatever you wish as you are making up your own thread.

Why don't you start your own, then you can tell everyone what they really meant when they write something

It is not a parallel argument, it is the argument that you started but are trying to distance yourself from. As I have evidenced, and others have noticed and stated.

Opinion does not equal evidence.

Your demands and questions answered as directly as possible. Mine not so much

Yawn.

Last word to you as you can't help yourself

I did answer questions directly, you chose to misquote me which is hardly you being as direct as possible. It is however typical of you trying to obfuscate and save face.

I have to keep saying the same thing as you keep on either avoiding it or lying about it. Its not about having the last word, its about calling out your nonsense.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *kstallionMan over a year ago

milton keynes

"If people cannot be bothered to register to vote the they cannot moan about it.

Determinedly focusing on just one thing.

Not read the article then? Not responding to the direct quotes either?

Not a surprise

Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?

Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?

Why so difficult to reply directly to a direct question?

MP numbers are not being reduced.

Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data a good thing?

Is no Parliamentary oversight of this process a good thing?

Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?

Why so difficult to answer directly? Yes/no would actually be fine

What is the purpose of redrawing boundaries?

If you do not have the correct information for who is in a constituency now, how do you redraw it?

The mailing to every residence is absolutely the most accurate method of measuring voter numbers, not inferring from other data.

I wrote nothing about not being eligible to vote.

The Boundary Comission works to the terms that it is given and uses the data that it had available.

If it has less accurate data available it can less accurately draw boundaries.

Does that make logical sense?

I said nothing about people being prevented from voting.

I think that any process that makes it more likely that someone to vote is preferable for one that does not.

What do you think?

So they work within set parameters?

What data is inaccurate before they decide on boundaries?

Whatever constituency you happen to fall in it does not stop you registering. Even if yours changes you just register in your new one. If in doubt check.

Why does it affect Labour differently to other parties

Does it make logical sense that the most accurate voter data now will provide the best information for redrawing boundaries?

That's a completely neutral question. You must be able to answer that directly.

If you are not recording 9 million voters then you cannot draw boundaries correctly right?

I said nothing anywhere about being prevented from voting.

Once again, I think that any process that makes it more likely that someone to vote is preferable for one that does not.

What do you think?

I didn't mention Labour. I said that reduction in the votes of the young or the poor tended to favour the Tory party.

Do you disagree?

There is a separate discussion about people's responsibility to register to vote if they wish and even distribution of population within a constituency.

You and I disagree over it being an inherent good that more people should vote. Fine.

If you don't believe that, then again how you view normal behaviour and priorities, particularly of younger people, is very different to my own.

The paper system currently maximises the accuracy of electoral data. Without replacing or supplementing this process then the data will be less accurate."

Where did I say it's not a good thing more people should vote? Where I disagree is I believe people need to take responsibility and not leave such things to the state. As many have said the news of elections are unavoidable. If all these people you say are being left out took a few minutes to register and vote then we would have better turnouts which I welcome

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyuk OP Man over a year ago

West London

"If people cannot be bothered to register to vote the they cannot moan about it.

Determinedly focusing on just one thing.

Not read the article then? Not responding to the direct quotes either?

Not a surprise

Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?

Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?

Why so difficult to reply directly to a direct question?

MP numbers are not being reduced.

Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data a good thing?

Is no Parliamentary oversight of this process a good thing?

Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?

Why so difficult to answer directly? Yes/no would actually be fine

What is the purpose of redrawing boundaries?

If you do not have the correct information for who is in a constituency now, how do you redraw it?

The mailing to every residence is absolutely the most accurate method of measuring voter numbers, not inferring from other data.

I wrote nothing about not being eligible to vote.

The Boundary Comission works to the terms that it is given and uses the data that it had available.

If it has less accurate data available it can less accurately draw boundaries.

Does that make logical sense?

I said nothing about people being prevented from voting.

I think that any process that makes it more likely that someone to vote is preferable for one that does not.

What do you think?

So they work within set parameters?

What data is inaccurate before they decide on boundaries?

Whatever constituency you happen to fall in it does not stop you registering. Even if yours changes you just register in your new one. If in doubt check.

Why does it affect Labour differently to other parties

Does it make logical sense that the most accurate voter data now will provide the best information for redrawing boundaries?

That's a completely neutral question. You must be able to answer that directly.

If you are not recording 9 million voters then you cannot draw boundaries correctly right?

I said nothing anywhere about being prevented from voting.

Once again, I think that any process that makes it more likely that someone to vote is preferable for one that does not.

What do you think?

I didn't mention Labour. I said that reduction in the votes of the young or the poor tended to favour the Tory party.

Do you disagree?

There is a separate discussion about people's responsibility to register to vote if they wish and even distribution of population within a constituency.

You and I disagree over it being an inherent good that more people should vote. Fine.

If you don't believe that, then again how you view normal behaviour and priorities, particularly of younger people, is very different to my own.

The paper system currently maximises the accuracy of electoral data. Without replacing or supplementing this process then the data will be less accurate.

So you do think it is a good thing that more people should vote?

You haven't actually responded to that question have you?

I think any opportunity the state or any other organisation provides to encourage this is good.

You do not. You call it "taking responsibility" but you disagree with money being spent specifically to encourage this.

The fact that this direct mailing also provides the most accurate measure of voter location is also of no importance to you with respect to setting constituency boundaries.

Got it

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ostafunMan over a year ago

near ipswich

yes everyone should vote.

you have still not explained how 9 million mainly tory voters (your words) are being left off the electoral roll?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 28/06/20 14:21:33]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *kstallionMan over a year ago

milton keynes

"If people cannot be bothered to register to vote the they cannot moan about it.

Determinedly focusing on just one thing.

Not read the article then? Not responding to the direct quotes either?

Not a surprise

Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?

Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?

Why so difficult to reply directly to a direct question?

MP numbers are not being reduced.

Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data a good thing?

Is no Parliamentary oversight of this process a good thing?

Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?

Why so difficult to answer directly? Yes/no would actually be fine

What is the purpose of redrawing boundaries?

If you do not have the correct information for who is in a constituency now, how do you redraw it?

The mailing to every residence is absolutely the most accurate method of measuring voter numbers, not inferring from other data.

I wrote nothing about not being eligible to vote.

The Boundary Comission works to the terms that it is given and uses the data that it had available.

If it has less accurate data available it can less accurately draw boundaries.

Does that make logical sense?

I said nothing about people being prevented from voting.

I think that any process that makes it more likely that someone to vote is preferable for one that does not.

What do you think?

So they work within set parameters?

What data is inaccurate before they decide on boundaries?

Whatever constituency you happen to fall in it does not stop you registering. Even if yours changes you just register in your new one. If in doubt check.

Why does it affect Labour differently to other parties

Does it make logical sense that the most accurate voter data now will provide the best information for redrawing boundaries?

That's a completely neutral question. You must be able to answer that directly.

If you are not recording 9 million voters then you cannot draw boundaries correctly right?

I said nothing anywhere about being prevented from voting.

Once again, I think that any process that makes it more likely that someone to vote is preferable for one that does not.

What do you think?

I didn't mention Labour. I said that reduction in the votes of the young or the poor tended to favour the Tory party.

Do you disagree?

There is a separate discussion about people's responsibility to register to vote if they wish and even distribution of population within a constituency.

You and I disagree over it being an inherent good that more people should vote. Fine.

If you don't believe that, then again how you view normal behaviour and priorities, particularly of younger people, is very different to my own.

The paper system currently maximises the accuracy of electoral data. Without replacing or supplementing this process then the data will be less accurate.

So you do think it is a good thing that more people should vote?

You haven't actually responded to that question have you?

I think any opportunity the state or any other organisation provides to encourage this is good.

You do not. You call it "taking responsibility" but you disagree with money being spent specifically to encourage this.

The fact that this direct mailing also provides the most accurate measure of voter location is also of no importance to you with respect to setting constituency boundaries.

Got it

Yes of course and I have never said otherwise despite your false claims.

Where we disagree is how that should be be achieved.

At what point did I mention money? Yet again its you making things up.

So to directly answer your question NO I do not think its up to the state I think people should take responsibility. I they want to vote register or check the register and vote. The elections are very well covered so no excuse for people who actually want to vote making sure they can

GOT IT

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyuk OP Man over a year ago

West London

"yes everyone should vote.

you have still not explained how 9 million mainly tory voters (your words) are being left off the electoral roll? "

I did not say that everyone should vote.

I said that everyone should be encouraged to vote and that anything that achieves that aim should be encouraged.

Do you agree?

This process affects the young and the poor he most as they are the most mobile.

Direct mailing will achieve that in many cases. It is not the only way but nothing else is being proposed to replace this system even though this will be removed.

The primary purpose is to accurately (as possible) log the population distribution of registered voters. This will allow boundary redrawing to be carried out in the most accurate way possible.

Is that worth doing?

In fact even more can and should be done which is not. There are already millions of people missing which the government is in no hurry to find.

Read the article.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyuk OP Man over a year ago

West London

"If people cannot be bothered to register to vote the they cannot moan about it.

Determinedly focusing on just one thing.

Not read the article then? Not responding to the direct quotes either?

Not a surprise

Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?

Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?

Why so difficult to reply directly to a direct question?

MP numbers are not being reduced.

Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data a good thing?

Is no Parliamentary oversight of this process a good thing?

Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?

Why so difficult to answer directly? Yes/no would actually be fine

What is the purpose of redrawing boundaries?

If you do not have the correct information for who is in a constituency now, how do you redraw it?

The mailing to every residence is absolutely the most accurate method of measuring voter numbers, not inferring from other data.

I wrote nothing about not being eligible to vote.

The Boundary Comission works to the terms that it is given and uses the data that it had available.

If it has less accurate data available it can less accurately draw boundaries.

Does that make logical sense?

I said nothing about people being prevented from voting.

I think that any process that makes it more likely that someone to vote is preferable for one that does not.

What do you think?

So they work within set parameters?

What data is inaccurate before they decide on boundaries?

Whatever constituency you happen to fall in it does not stop you registering. Even if yours changes you just register in your new one. If in doubt check.

Why does it affect Labour differently to other parties

Does it make logical sense that the most accurate voter data now will provide the best information for redrawing boundaries?

That's a completely neutral question. You must be able to answer that directly.

If you are not recording 9 million voters then you cannot draw boundaries correctly right?

I said nothing anywhere about being prevented from voting.

Once again, I think that any process that makes it more likely that someone to vote is preferable for one that does not.

What do you think?

I didn't mention Labour. I said that reduction in the votes of the young or the poor tended to favour the Tory party.

Do you disagree?

There is a separate discussion about people's responsibility to register to vote if they wish and even distribution of population within a constituency.

You and I disagree over it being an inherent good that more people should vote. Fine.

If you don't believe that, then again how you view normal behaviour and priorities, particularly of younger people, is very different to my own.

The paper system currently maximises the accuracy of electoral data. Without replacing or supplementing this process then the data will be less accurate.

So you do think it is a good thing that more people should vote?

You haven't actually responded to that question have you?

I think any opportunity the state or any other organisation provides to encourage this is good.

You do not. You call it "taking responsibility" but you disagree with money being spent specifically to encourage this.

The fact that this direct mailing also provides the most accurate measure of voter location is also of no importance to you with respect to setting constituency boundaries.

Got it

Yes of course and I have never said otherwise despite your false claims.

Where we disagree is how that should be be achieved.

At what point did I mention money? Yet again its you making things up.

GOT IT"

So you do agree that the government should take all necessary steps to both encourage voting and accurately assess the numbers of people eligible vote so as to accurately draw constituency boundaries?

We do not disagree at all in that case.

I apologise for any misunderstanding

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *kstallionMan over a year ago

milton keynes

"If people cannot be bothered to register to vote the they cannot moan about it.

Determinedly focusing on just one thing.

Not read the article then? Not responding to the direct quotes either?

Not a surprise

Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?

Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?

Why so difficult to reply directly to a direct question?

MP numbers are not being reduced.

Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data a good thing?

Is no Parliamentary oversight of this process a good thing?

Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?

Why so difficult to answer directly? Yes/no would actually be fine

What is the purpose of redrawing boundaries?

If you do not have the correct information for who is in a constituency now, how do you redraw it?

The mailing to every residence is absolutely the most accurate method of measuring voter numbers, not inferring from other data.

I wrote nothing about not being eligible to vote.

The Boundary Comission works to the terms that it is given and uses the data that it had available.

If it has less accurate data available it can less accurately draw boundaries.

Does that make logical sense?

I said nothing about people being prevented from voting.

I think that any process that makes it more likely that someone to vote is preferable for one that does not.

What do you think?

So they work within set parameters?

What data is inaccurate before they decide on boundaries?

Whatever constituency you happen to fall in it does not stop you registering. Even if yours changes you just register in your new one. If in doubt check.

Why does it affect Labour differently to other parties

Does it make logical sense that the most accurate voter data now will provide the best information for redrawing boundaries?

That's a completely neutral question. You must be able to answer that directly.

If you are not recording 9 million voters then you cannot draw boundaries correctly right?

I said nothing anywhere about being prevented from voting.

Once again, I think that any process that makes it more likely that someone to vote is preferable for one that does not.

What do you think?

I didn't mention Labour. I said that reduction in the votes of the young or the poor tended to favour the Tory party.

Do you disagree?

There is a separate discussion about people's responsibility to register to vote if they wish and even distribution of population within a constituency.

You and I disagree over it being an inherent good that more people should vote. Fine.

If you don't believe that, then again how you view normal behaviour and priorities, particularly of younger people, is very different to my own.

The paper system currently maximises the accuracy of electoral data. Without replacing or supplementing this process then the data will be less accurate.

So you do think it is a good thing that more people should vote?

You haven't actually responded to that question have you?

I think any opportunity the state or any other organisation provides to encourage this is good.

You do not. You call it "taking responsibility" but you disagree with money being spent specifically to encourage this.

The fact that this direct mailing also provides the most accurate measure of voter location is also of no importance to you with respect to setting constituency boundaries.

Got it

Yes of course and I have never said otherwise despite your false claims.

Where we disagree is how that should be be achieved.

At what point did I mention money? Yet again its you making things up.

GOT IT

We do not disagree at all in that case.

I apologise for any misunderstanding

I think you need to 're read my last post as I clearly said NO I don't think its up to the state instead it is people's responsibility to register or check the register and vote. The end goal of people voting we seem to agree. How we get there we disagree.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyuk OP Man over a year ago

West London

"If people cannot be bothered to register to vote the they cannot moan about it.

Determinedly focusing on just one thing.

Not read the article then? Not responding to the direct quotes either?

Not a surprise

Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?

Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?

Why so difficult to reply directly to a direct question?

MP numbers are not being reduced.

Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data a good thing?

Is no Parliamentary oversight of this process a good thing?

Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?

Why so difficult to answer directly? Yes/no would actually be fine

What is the purpose of redrawing boundaries?

If you do not have the correct information for who is in a constituency now, how do you redraw it?

The mailing to every residence is absolutely the most accurate method of measuring voter numbers, not inferring from other data.

I wrote nothing about not being eligible to vote.

The Boundary Comission works to the terms that it is given and uses the data that it had available.

If it has less accurate data available it can less accurately draw boundaries.

Does that make logical sense?

I said nothing about people being prevented from voting.

I think that any process that makes it more likely that someone to vote is preferable for one that does not.

What do you think?

So they work within set parameters?

What data is inaccurate before they decide on boundaries?

Whatever constituency you happen to fall in it does not stop you registering. Even if yours changes you just register in your new one. If in doubt check.

Why does it affect Labour differently to other parties

Does it make logical sense that the most accurate voter data now will provide the best information for redrawing boundaries?

That's a completely neutral question. You must be able to answer that directly.

If you are not recording 9 million voters then you cannot draw boundaries correctly right?

I said nothing anywhere about being prevented from voting.

Once again, I think that any process that makes it more likely that someone to vote is preferable for one that does not.

What do you think?

I didn't mention Labour. I said that reduction in the votes of the young or the poor tended to favour the Tory party.

Do you disagree?

There is a separate discussion about people's responsibility to register to vote if they wish and even distribution of population within a constituency.

You and I disagree over it being an inherent good that more people should vote. Fine.

If you don't believe that, then again how you view normal behaviour and priorities, particularly of younger people, is very different to my own.

The paper system currently maximises the accuracy of electoral data. Without replacing or supplementing this process then the data will be less accurate.

So you do think it is a good thing that more people should vote?

You haven't actually responded to that question have you?

I think any opportunity the state or any other organisation provides to encourage this is good.

You do not. You call it "taking responsibility" but you disagree with money being spent specifically to encourage this.

The fact that this direct mailing also provides the most accurate measure of voter location is also of no importance to you with respect to setting constituency boundaries.

Got it

Yes of course and I have never said otherwise despite your false claims.

Where we disagree is how that should be be achieved.

At what point did I mention money? Yet again its you making things up.

GOT IT

We do not disagree at all in that case.

I apologise for any misunderstanding

Right. So you do not think that as many people as possible should be encouraged to vote?

I have no idea of your opinion on achieving the most accurate data for drawing constituency boundaries.

If this accidentally means that the state encourages people to register to vote is that a good or a bad thing?

I can't help but be confused by what yoga re actually saying.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ostafunMan over a year ago

near ipswich

"yes everyone should vote.

you have still not explained how 9 million mainly tory voters (your words) are being left off the electoral roll?

I did not say that everyone should vote.

I said that everyone should be encouraged to vote and that anything that achieves that aim should be encouraged.

Do you agree?

This process affects the young and the poor he most as they are the most mobile.

Direct mailing will achieve that in many cases. It is not the only way but nothing else is being proposed to replace this system even though this will be removed.

The primary purpose is to accurately (as possible) log the population distribution of registered voters. This will allow boundary redrawing to be carried out in the most accurate way possible.

Is that worth doing?

In fact even more can and should be done which is not. There are already millions of people missing which the government is in no hurry to find.

Read the article."
I have read it and as I said before it's not hard to register to vote.I am sure that the electoral commission know how many houses there are in the areas being redefined so mailing every household is a total waste of money.It will be years before the next election and people move about so I still don't see your point apart from the fact you read something in the independent and thought it would be a good Tory bashing thread without thinking that the article is a load of non news.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyuk OP Man over a year ago

West London

"yes everyone should vote.

you have still not explained how 9 million mainly tory voters (your words) are being left off the electoral roll?

I did not say that everyone should vote.

I said that everyone should be encouraged to vote and that anything that achieves that aim should be encouraged.

Do you agree?

This process affects the young and the poor he most as they are the most mobile.

Direct mailing will achieve that in many cases. It is not the only way but nothing else is being proposed to replace this system even though this will be removed.

The primary purpose is to accurately (as possible) log the population distribution of registered voters. This will allow boundary redrawing to be carried out in the most accurate way possible.

Is that worth doing?

In fact even more can and should be done which is not. There are already millions of people missing which the government is in no hurry to find.

Read the article. I have read it and as I said before it's not hard to register to vote.I am sure that the electoral commission know how many houses there are in the areas being redefined so mailing every household is a total waste of money.It will be years before the next election and people move about so I still don't see your point apart from the fact you read something in the independent and thought it would be a good Tory bashing thread without thinking that the article is a load of non news.

What did you understand from the article then?

Your post here implies that you seem confused.

For instance, how does the number of houses tell you how many eligible voters there are in them?

Have the Electoral Commission said that everything is fine?

Does this mean something different to you than it does to me?

"Ministers have failed to respond to the Electoral Commission’s call for modern methods to drag registration into the 21st century for almost one year"

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *obka3Couple over a year ago

bournemouth

If people arent aware they have to register to vote why would you expect them to understand the issues of the day to be able to cast that vote.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ostafunMan over a year ago

near ipswich

"yes everyone should vote.

you have still not explained how 9 million mainly tory voters (your words) are being left off the electoral roll?

I did not say that everyone should vote.

I said that everyone should be encouraged to vote and that anything that achieves that aim should be encouraged.

Do you agree?

This process affects the young and the poor he most as they are the most mobile.

Direct mailing will achieve that in many cases. It is not the only way but nothing else is being proposed to replace this system even though this will be removed.

The primary purpose is to accurately (as possible) log the population distribution of registered voters. This will allow boundary redrawing to be carried out in the most accurate way possible.

Is that worth doing?

In fact even more can and should be done which is not. There are already millions of people missing which the government is in no hurry to find.

What did you understand from the article then?

Your post here implies that you seem confused.

For instance, how does the number of houses tell you how many eligible voters there are in them?

Have the Electoral Commission said that everything is fine?

Does this mean something different to you than it does to me?

"Ministers have failed to respond to the Electoral Commission’s call for modern methods to drag registration into the 21st century for almost one year""
How is mailing everyone as you suggest MODERN METHODS did you read the article? I think the postal service started in the 1600,s hardly modern.I can imagine the data protection conspiracy theorists having a field day them collecting data from all government sources when most of them would not sign up for an app.But getting back the main post how is any of this remotely connected to VOTER SUPPRESSION????????

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyuk OP Man over a year ago

West London

"yes everyone should vote.

you have still not explained how 9 million mainly tory voters (your words) are being left off the electoral roll?

I did not say that everyone should vote.

I said that everyone should be encouraged to vote and that anything that achieves that aim should be encouraged.

Do you agree?

This process affects the young and the poor he most as they are the most mobile.

Direct mailing will achieve that in many cases. It is not the only way but nothing else is being proposed to replace this system even though this will be removed.

The primary purpose is to accurately (as possible) log the population distribution of registered voters. This will allow boundary redrawing to be carried out in the most accurate way possible.

Is that worth doing?

In fact even more can and should be done which is not. There are already millions of people missing which the government is in no hurry to find.

What did you understand from the article then?

Your post here implies that you seem confused.

For instance, how does the number of houses tell you how many eligible voters there are in them?

Have the Electoral Commission said that everything is fine?

Does this mean something different to you than it does to me?

"Ministers have failed to respond to the Electoral Commission’s call for modern methods to drag registration into the 21st century for almost one year"How is mailing everyone as you suggest MODERN METHODS did you read the article? I think the postal service started in the 1600,s hardly modern.I can imagine the data protection conspiracy theorists having a field day them collecting data from all government sources when most of them would not sign up for an app.But getting back the main post how is any of this remotely connected to VOTER SUPPRESSION???????? "

That's the best that we have without something new, but that is going to be removed as well without anything to replace it.

That's the point.

I thought that you read the article?

It means that methods to I crease the registration of voters are not being explored. In fact, they are being reduced.

I thought that you read the article?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ostafunMan over a year ago

near ipswich

"yes everyone should vote.

you have still not explained how 9 million mainly tory voters (your words) are being left off the electoral roll?

I did not say that everyone should vote.

I said that everyone should be encouraged to vote and that anything that achieves that aim should be encouraged.

Do you agree?

This process affects the young and the poor he most as they are the most mobile.

Direct mailing will achieve that in many cases. It is not the only way but nothing else is being proposed to replace this system even though this will be removed.

The primary purpose is to accurately (as possible) log the population distribution of registered voters. This will allow boundary redrawing to be carried out in the most accurate way possible.

Is that worth doing?

In fact even more can and should be done which is not. There are already millions of people missing which the government is in no hurry to find.

What did you understand from the article then?

Your post here implies that you seem confused.

For instance, how does the number of houses tell you how many eligible voters there are in them?

Have the Electoral Commission said that everything is fine?

Does this mean something different to you than it does to me?

That's the best that we have without something new, but that is going to be removed as well without anything to replace it.

That's the point.

I thought that you read the article?

It means that methods to I crease the registration of voters are not being explored. In fact, they are being reduced.

I thought that you read the article?"
How many more times i read it what has it got to do with voter suppression???????????

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyuk OP Man over a year ago

West London

"yes everyone should vote.

you have still not explained how 9 million mainly tory voters (your words) are being left off the electoral roll?

I did not say that everyone should vote.

I said that everyone should be encouraged to vote and that anything that achieves that aim should be encouraged.

Do you agree?

This process affects the young and the poor he most as they are the most mobile.

Direct mailing will achieve that in many cases. It is not the only way but nothing else is being proposed to replace this system even though this will be removed.

The primary purpose is to accurately (as possible) log the population distribution of registered voters. This will allow boundary redrawing to be carried out in the most accurate way possible.

Is that worth doing?

In fact even more can and should be done which is not. There are already millions of people missing which the government is in no hurry to find.

What did you understand from the article then?

Your post here implies that you seem confused.

For instance, how does the number of houses tell you how many eligible voters there are in them?

Have the Electoral Commission said that everything is fine?

Does this mean something different to you than it does to me?

That's the best that we have without something new, but that is going to be removed as well without anything to replace it.

That's the point.

I thought that you read the article?

It means that methods to I crease the registration of voters are not being explored. In fact, they are being reduced.

I thought that you read the article?How many more times i read it what has it got to do with voter suppression???????????"

"It means that methods to increase the registration of voters are not being explored. In fact, they are being REDUCED."

Capitals for emphasis only. Not shouting. Reducing opportunity for voter registration is voter suppression.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ostafunMan over a year ago

near ipswich

"yes everyone should vote.

you have still not explained how 9 million mainly tory voters (your words) are being left off the electoral roll?

I did not say that everyone should vote.

I said that everyone should be encouraged to vote and that anything that achieves that aim should be encouraged.

Do you agree?

This process affects the young and the poor he most as they are the most mobile.

Direct mailing will achieve that in many cases. It is not the only way but nothing else is being proposed to replace this system even though this will be removed.

The primary purpose is to accurately (as possible) log the population distribution of registered voters. This will allow boundary redrawing to be carried out in the most accurate way possible.

Is that worth doing?

In fact even more can and should be done which is not. There are already millions of people missing which the government is in no hurry to find.

What did you understand from the article then?

Your post here implies that you seem confused.

For instance, how does the number of houses tell you how many eligible voters there are in them?

Have the Electoral Commission said that everything is fine?

Does this mean something different to you than it does to me?

That's the best that we have without something new, but that is going to be removed as well without anything to replace it.

That's the point.

I thought that you read the article?

It means that methods to I crease the registration of voters are not being explored. In fact, they are being reduced.

I thought that you read the article?How many more times i read it what has it got to do with voter suppression???????????

"It means that methods to increase the registration of voters are not being explored. In fact, they are being REDUCED."

Capitals for emphasis only. Not shouting. Reducing opportunity for voter registration is voter suppression."
But its not reducing opportunity to voter registration is it? everyone still has the same opportunity no matter how you try to spin it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"yes everyone should vote.

you have still not explained how 9 million mainly tory voters (your words) are being left off the electoral roll?

I did not say that everyone should vote.

I said that everyone should be encouraged to vote and that anything that achieves that aim should be encouraged.

Do you agree?

This process affects the young and the poor he most as they are the most mobile.

Direct mailing will achieve that in many cases. It is not the only way but nothing else is being proposed to replace this system even though this will be removed.

The primary purpose is to accurately (as possible) log the population distribution of registered voters. This will allow boundary redrawing to be carried out in the most accurate way possible.

Is that worth doing?

In fact even more can and should be done which is not. There are already millions of people missing which the government is in no hurry to find.

What did you understand from the article then?

Your post here implies that you seem confused.

For instance, how does the number of houses tell you how many eligible voters there are in them?

Have the Electoral Commission said that everything is fine?

Does this mean something different to you than it does to me?

That's the best that we have without something new, but that is going to be removed as well without anything to replace it.

That's the point.

I thought that you read the article?

It means that methods to I crease the registration of voters are not being explored. In fact, they are being reduced.

I thought that you read the article?How many more times i read it what has it got to do with voter suppression???????????

"It means that methods to increase the registration of voters are not being explored. In fact, they are being REDUCED."

Capitals for emphasis only. Not shouting. Reducing opportunity for voter registration is voter suppression."

You might be able to consider it suppression if there wasn't another option for people to register to vote. As it stands people can register to vote online in minutes (implemented under a tory gov btw).

Nobody is losing their right or ability to vote and as I have said repeatedly, People have more than enough prompts to remind them already.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *eroy1000Man over a year ago

milton keynes

"yes everyone should vote.

you have still not explained how 9 million mainly tory voters (your words) are being left off the electoral roll?

I did not say that everyone should vote.

I said that everyone should be encouraged to vote and that anything that achieves that aim should be encouraged.

Do you agree?

This process affects the young and the poor he most as they are the most mobile.

Direct mailing will achieve that in many cases. It is not the only way but nothing else is being proposed to replace this system even though this will be removed.

The primary purpose is to accurately (as possible) log the population distribution of registered voters. This will allow boundary redrawing to be carried out in the most accurate way possible.

Is that worth doing?

In fact even more can and should be done which is not. There are already millions of people missing which the government is in no hurry to find.

What did you understand from the article then?

Your post here implies that you seem confused.

For instance, how does the number of houses tell you how many eligible voters there are in them?

Have the Electoral Commission said that everything is fine?

Does this mean something different to you than it does to me?

That's the best that we have without something new, but that is going to be removed as well without anything to replace it.

That's the point.

I thought that you read the article?

It means that methods to I crease the registration of voters are not being explored. In fact, they are being reduced.

I thought that you read the article?How many more times i read it what has it got to do with voter suppression???????????

"It means that methods to increase the registration of voters are not being explored. In fact, they are being REDUCED."

Capitals for emphasis only. Not shouting. Reducing opportunity for voter registration is voter suppression."

As long as people are not denied the opportunity to register I don't see your point. It's simple and easy to do and is not affected by being young or poor. I thought encouraging things to be done online was all the rage and in this case cuts down on paper and postage

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyuk OP Man over a year ago

West London

Apparently everyone thinks that encouraging people to register to vote is a good thing.

Does anyone not?

Apparently the state making any effort to encourage people to register to vote is bad.

Is that correct?

Having accurate data to correctly define constituency boundaries is a good thing.

Is that correct?

Using the current method of direct mailing is not an acceptable method to do this. It does, in fact, miss a lot of people.

Is that correct?

Removing direct voter registration is acceptable with no other method being put in place even if that reduces registration further.

Is that correct?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Apparently everyone thinks that encouraging people to register to vote is a good thing.

Does anyone not?

Apparently the state making any effort to encourage people to register to vote is bad.

Is that correct?

Having accurate data to correctly define constituency boundaries is a good thing.

Is that correct?

Using the current method of direct mailing is not an acceptable method to do this. It does, in fact, miss a lot of people.

Is that correct?

Removing direct voter registration is acceptable with no other method being put in place even if that reduces registration further.

Is that correct?"

1 - A fair assumption, most people would want others to have the opportunity to vote.

2 - Not one person has said that.

3 - Not one person has said it is not a good thing.

4 - Not one person has said it is not an acceptable way, just questioned its necessity.

5 - Not one person has said it is ok to reduce registration. They have said they don't believe it will make a difference.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 29/06/20 00:13:02]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Apparently everyone thinks that encouraging people to register to vote is a good thing.

Does anyone not?

Apparently the state making any effort to encourage people to register to vote is bad.

Is that correct?

Having accurate data to correctly define constituency boundaries is a good thing.

Is that correct?

Using the current method of direct mailing is not an acceptable method to do this. It does, in fact, miss a lot of people.

Is that correct?

Removing direct voter registration is acceptable with no other method being put in place even if that reduces registration further.

Is that correct?

1 - A fair assumption, most people would want others to have the opportunity to vote.

2 - Not one person has said that.

3 - Not one person has said it is not a good thing.

4 - Not one person has said it is not an acceptable way, just questioned its necessity.

5 - Not one person has said it is ok to reduce registration. They have said they don't believe it will make a difference. "

following on, (I hit post before I was finished)

All but one of your assertions are a strawman argument. You are deliberately avoiding what people are saying and misrepresenting what they mean.

Postal reminders are out dated and unnecessary.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyuk OP Man over a year ago

West London

"Apparently everyone thinks that encouraging people to register to vote is a good thing.

Does anyone not?

Apparently the state making any effort to encourage people to register to vote is bad.

Is that correct?

Having accurate data to correctly define constituency boundaries is a good thing.

Is that correct?

Using the current method of direct mailing is not an acceptable method to do this. It does, in fact, miss a lot of people.

Is that correct?

Removing direct voter registration is acceptable with no other method being put in place even if that reduces registration further.

Is that correct?

1 - A fair assumption, most people would want others to have the opportunity to vote.

2 - Not one person has said that.

3 - Not one person has said it is not a good thing.

4 - Not one person has said it is not an acceptable way, just questioned its necessity.

5 - Not one person has said it is ok to reduce registration. They have said they don't believe it will make a difference.

following on, (I hit post before I was finished)

All but one of your assertions are a strawman argument. You are deliberately avoiding what people are saying and misrepresenting what they mean.

Postal reminders are out dated and unnecessary."

A "strawman" argument based on what? They are questions, not "an argument".

Let me rewrite this then.

1 - Everyone thinks that encouraging people to register to vote is a good thing.

2 - The state making any effort to encourage people to register to vote is a good thing.

3 - Having accurate data to correctly define constituency boundaries is a good thing

4 - Using the current method of direct mailing is an acceptable method to do this even if it misses some potential voters out.

5 - Removing direct voter registration is not acceptable with no other method being put in place as it would reduce voter registration.

If this is what you meant then I agree too

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ostafunMan over a year ago

near ipswich

"Apparently everyone thinks that encouraging people to register to vote is a good thing.

Does anyone not?

Apparently the state making any effort to encourage people to register to vote is bad.

Is that correct?

Having accurate data to correctly define constituency boundaries is a good thing.

Is that correct?

Using the current method of direct mailing is not an acceptable method to do this. It does, in fact, miss a lot of people.

Is that correct?

Removing direct voter registration is acceptable with no other method being put in place even if that reduces registration further.

Is that correct?

1 - A fair assumption, most people would want others to have the opportunity to vote.

2 - Not one person has said that.

3 - Not one person has said it is not a good thing.

4 - Not one person has said it is not an acceptable way, just questioned its necessity.

5 - Not one person has said it is ok to reduce registration. They have said they don't believe it will make a difference."
Give up mate he will have you going round in circles no matter how clearly you put it and has to have the last word. Very entertaining though.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyuk OP Man over a year ago

West London

"Apparently everyone thinks that encouraging people to register to vote is a good thing.

Does anyone not?

Apparently the state making any effort to encourage people to register to vote is bad.

Is that correct?

Having accurate data to correctly define constituency boundaries is a good thing.

Is that correct?

Using the current method of direct mailing is not an acceptable method to do this. It does, in fact, miss a lot of people.

Is that correct?

Removing direct voter registration is acceptable with no other method being put in place even if that reduces registration further.

Is that correct?

1 - A fair assumption, most people would want others to have the opportunity to vote.

2 - Not one person has said that.

3 - Not one person has said it is not a good thing.

4 - Not one person has said it is not an acceptable way, just questioned its necessity.

5 - Not one person has said it is ok to reduce registration. They have said they don't believe it will make a difference. Give up mate he will have you going round in circles no matter how clearly you put it and has to have the last word. Very entertaining though.

That's the point though.

You are all simultaneously agreeing and disagreeing with me.

Hadn't you noticed?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ostafunMan over a year ago

near ipswich

I rest my case

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Apparently everyone thinks that encouraging people to register to vote is a good thing.

Does anyone not?

Apparently the state making any effort to encourage people to register to vote is bad.

Is that correct?

Having accurate data to correctly define constituency boundaries is a good thing.

Is that correct?

Using the current method of direct mailing is not an acceptable method to do this. It does, in fact, miss a lot of people.

Is that correct?

Removing direct voter registration is acceptable with no other method being put in place even if that reduces registration further.

Is that correct?

1 - A fair assumption, most people would want others to have the opportunity to vote.

2 - Not one person has said that.

3 - Not one person has said it is not a good thing.

4 - Not one person has said it is not an acceptable way, just questioned its necessity.

5 - Not one person has said it is ok to reduce registration. They have said they don't believe it will make a difference.

following on, (I hit post before I was finished)

All but one of your assertions are a strawman argument. You are deliberately avoiding what people are saying and misrepresenting what they mean.

Postal reminders are out dated and unnecessary.

A "strawman" argument based on what? They are questions, not "an argument".

Let me rewrite this then.

1 - Everyone thinks that encouraging people to register to vote is a good thing.

2 - The state making any effort to encourage people to register to vote is a good thing.

3 - Having accurate data to correctly define constituency boundaries is a good thing

4 - Using the current method of direct mailing is an acceptable method to do this even if it misses some potential voters out.

5 - Removing direct voter registration is not acceptable with no other method being put in place as it would reduce voter registration.

If this is what you meant then I agree too

"Strawman Fallacy

Description: Substituting a person’s actual position or argument with a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of the position or the argument."

You made a list of statements that you want to imply I or others have said and as such you misrepresent our position.

You ignore my explicit statement saying that postal reminders are unnecessary and outdated and instead try to imply that I agree with you by once again using things i havent said. I.e straw manning. Rather than engage on my point/the crux of the matter you go around the houses trying to gain a "micro victory" by spuriously trying to "tell me what i think". Both of which you previously tried to accuse me of.

(It is worth noting that in psychology this is called projecting, a narcissistic trait commonly accompanied by gaslighting, which you accused someone of yesterday....

"projection refers to unconsciously taking unwanted emotions or traits you don’t like about yourself and attributing them to someone else.

A common example is a cheating spouse who suspects their partner is being unfaithful. Instead of acknowledging their own infidelity, they transfer, or project, this behavior onto their partner"

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Apparently everyone thinks that encouraging people to register to vote is a good thing.

Does anyone not?

Apparently the state making any effort to encourage people to register to vote is bad.

Is that correct?

Having accurate data to correctly define constituency boundaries is a good thing.

Is that correct?

Using the current method of direct mailing is not an acceptable method to do this. It does, in fact, miss a lot of people.

Is that correct?

Removing direct voter registration is acceptable with no other method being put in place even if that reduces registration further.

Is that correct?

1 - A fair assumption, most people would want others to have the opportunity to vote.

2 - Not one person has said that.

3 - Not one person has said it is not a good thing.

4 - Not one person has said it is not an acceptable way, just questioned its necessity.

That's the point though.

You are all simultaneously agreeing and disagreeing with me.

Hadn't you noticed?

Of course i have noticed, it is the basis of me saying you are both straw manning and avoiding the point.

You make a point that we can agree on yet unrelated to the argument i am making (such as the one about encouraging people to vote being a good thing)and use that point to claim i am agreeing with your counter argument.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *asyuk OP Man over a year ago

West London

"Apparently everyone thinks that encouraging people to register to vote is a good thing.

Does anyone not?

Apparently the state making any effort to encourage people to register to vote is bad.

Is that correct?

Having accurate data to correctly define constituency boundaries is a good thing.

Is that correct?

Using the current method of direct mailing is not an acceptable method to do this. It does, in fact, miss a lot of people.

Is that correct?

Removing direct voter registration is acceptable with no other method being put in place even if that reduces registration further.

Is that correct?

1 - A fair assumption, most people would want others to have the opportunity to vote.

2 - Not one person has said that.

3 - Not one person has said it is not a good thing.

4 - Not one person has said it is not an acceptable way, just questioned its necessity.

5 - Not one person has said it is ok to reduce registration. They have said they don't believe it will make a difference.

following on, (I hit post before I was finished)

All but one of your assertions are a strawman argument. You are deliberately avoiding what people are saying and misrepresenting what they mean.

Postal reminders are out dated and unnecessary.

A "strawman" argument based on what? They are questions, not "an argument".

Let me rewrite this then.

1 - Everyone thinks that encouraging people to register to vote is a good thing.

2 - The state making any effort to encourage people to register to vote is a good thing.

3 - Having accurate data to correctly define constituency boundaries is a good thing

4 - Using the current method of direct mailing is an acceptable method to do this even if it misses some potential voters out.

5 - Removing direct voter registration is not acceptable with no other method being put in place as it would reduce voter registration.

If this is what you meant then I agree too

"Strawman Fallacy

Description: Substituting a person’s actual position or argument with a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of the position or the argument."

You made a list of statements that you want to imply I or others have said and as such you misrepresent our position.

(It is worth noting that in psychology this is called projecting, a narcissistic trait commonly accompanied by gaslighting, which you accused someone of yesterday....

"projection refers to unconsciously taking unwanted emotions or traits you don’t like about yourself and attributing them to someone else.

A common example is a cheating spouse who suspects their partner is being unfaithful. Instead of acknowledging their own infidelity, they transfer, or project, this behavior onto their partner"

Either it is a good idea to soecifically remind people to register to vote during their busyy lives or it is not.

Apparently it is, but actually you would rather that it was left to chance and self-motivation and organisation.

Many people do not find the registration process as "easy" as you all seem to think nor is everyone as organised as you clearly are.

There is one organised method of voter registration in the UK. That is direvct mail. For some reason you seem to believe that it would make no difference whatsoever to the number of people registering to vote if it is withdrawn with no other process put in place.

Either accurate voter data is important for defining constituency boundaries or it is not. If it is and direct mail registration is currently the most accurate way of doing so, then removing it will reduce accuracy.

Why not actually address the points rather continually finding ways to try to be insulting and finding unrelated subjects to discuss? In fact the only thing that you have managed to communicate coherently are personal attacks on me. What an achievement.

I doubt very much that you will consider your own bullying behaviour with any form of introspection, but perhaps you should at least consider it.