FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Voter ID
Voter ID
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It was a solution (to suppress voting by people unlikely to vote Tory) looking for a problem. Basically another thing to try and help the current Govt cling to power. " so your saying labour voters dont have photo id or are incapable of registering for a certificate? If there that inept perhaps they shouldnt be near a polling booth | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It was a solution (to suppress voting by people unlikely to vote Tory) looking for a problem. Basically another thing to try and help the current Govt cling to power. so your saying labour voters dont have photo id or are incapable of registering for a certificate? If there that inept perhaps they shouldnt be near a polling booth" or are unlikely to realise there is this new requirement. Do you believe that every person is equally likely to have ID or be capable of registration? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It was a solution (to suppress voting by people unlikely to vote Tory) looking for a problem. Basically another thing to try and help the current Govt cling to power. so your saying labour voters dont have photo id or are incapable of registering for a certificate? If there that inept perhaps they shouldnt be near a polling booth" No but people in lower socio demographic groups are far more likely to not vote Tory, and are far more likely to not hold a passport of driving licence. We already have significant voter apathy in the UK, so this just creates an additional barrier (cos people have to go and do something and many just won’t bother). Nobody has yet given me (anywhere, not here) an explanation why a senior citizen bus pass or oyster card IS acceptable for voting but a young person buss pass or oyster card is not? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It was a solution (to suppress voting by people unlikely to vote Tory) looking for a problem. Basically another thing to try and help the current Govt cling to power. so your saying labour voters dont have photo id or are incapable of registering for a certificate? If there that inept perhaps they shouldnt be near a polling booth No but people in lower socio demographic groups are far more likely to not vote Tory, and are far more likely to not hold a passport of driving licence. We already have significant voter apathy in the UK, so this just creates an additional barrier (cos people have to go and do something and many just won’t bother). Nobody has yet given me (anywhere, not here) an explanation why a senior citizen bus pass or oyster card IS acceptable for voting but a young person buss pass or oyster card is not? " There is no explaination, other than they don't want younger people to vote as they know they'll be less likely to vote tory. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also don't buy that people cannot obtain ID. Especially seeing as free ID is available to anyone who needs one." Ah, in fairness it does have to be credible but a provisional driving license will not break the bank. Besides if you are THAT poor where you can't afford the fee we would say voting is the last thing on your mind... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also don't buy that people cannot obtain ID. Especially seeing as free ID is available to anyone who needs one. Ah, in fairness it does have to be credible but a provisional driving license will not break the bank. Besides if you are THAT poor where you can't afford the fee we would say voting is the last thing on your mind..." yeah... If you struggle to make ends meet the last thing you should be thinking about is who is in charge of the economy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It helps to make election fraud less likely. We do not buy the lie that minorities cannot obtain valid driving licenses." Voter fraud is a myth. Go look it up. The numbers are so small it is totally inconsequential. There has only been ONE prosecution for voter fraud. ONE! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also don't buy that people cannot obtain ID. Especially seeing as free ID is available to anyone who needs one."  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also don't buy that people cannot obtain ID. Especially seeing as free ID is available to anyone who needs one." So why can old people use their bus card or oyster card but young people can’t? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It helps to make election fraud less likely. We do not buy the lie that minorities cannot obtain valid driving licenses. Voter fraud is a myth. Go look it up. The numbers are so small it is totally inconsequential. There has only been ONE prosecution for voter fraud. ONE!" I strongly suspect that postal voting is the real problem, with some communities allowing their leaders to either collect the papers and send them on or "help" to fill them in on the pretext that English is not well understood. Having said that, photo ID is not too onerous. The most worrying (unbelievable) thing is that a recent poll apparently found that 25% of those polled didn't know that ID will be required! Some people must wander through life with their eyes and ears shut. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also don't buy that people cannot obtain ID. Especially seeing as free ID is available to anyone who needs one. So why can old people use their bus card or oyster card but young people can’t?" Over 60's apply for the passes or oyster cards and need to provide personal details to prove who they are and a photo. Young person pass does not meet that level of scrutiny | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also don't buy that people cannot obtain ID. Especially seeing as free ID is available to anyone who needs one. So why can old people use their bus card or oyster card but young people can’t?" I obviously have no idea. The fact remains though, free ID is available. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also don't buy that people cannot obtain ID. Especially seeing as free ID is available to anyone who needs one. So why can old people use their bus card or oyster card but young people can’t? Over 60's apply for the passes or oyster cards and need to provide personal details to prove who they are and a photo. Young person pass does not meet that level of scrutiny " Ah ok thanks. First person ever to explain that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also don't buy that people cannot obtain ID. Especially seeing as free ID is available to anyone who needs one. So why can old people use their bus card or oyster card but young people can’t? I obviously have no idea. The fact remains though, free ID is available." NotMe cracked it. I don’t think anyone is saying there aren’t alternative forms of ID. What is being said is this creates yet another barrier on top of voter apathy AND there is no actual problem that needs solving. None! Wasted effort! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also don't buy that people cannot obtain ID. Especially seeing as free ID is available to anyone who needs one. So why can old people use their bus card or oyster card but young people can’t? I obviously have no idea. The fact remains though, free ID is available. NotMe cracked it. I don’t think anyone is saying there aren’t alternative forms of ID. What is being said is this creates yet another barrier on top of voter apathy AND there is no actual problem that needs solving. None! Wasted effort!" Pretty sure we had this debate last year. My opinion is we have no idea how much fraud takes place as its never been checked before, take your card along to the station and vote. Zero checks in place. If someone wants to vote, this is no real barrier. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also don't buy that people cannot obtain ID. Especially seeing as free ID is available to anyone who needs one. So why can old people use their bus card or oyster card but young people can’t? I obviously have no idea. The fact remains though, free ID is available. NotMe cracked it. I don’t think anyone is saying there aren’t alternative forms of ID. What is being said is this creates yet another barrier on top of voter apathy AND there is no actual problem that needs solving. None! Wasted effort! Pretty sure we had this debate last year. My opinion is we have no idea how much fraud takes place as its never been checked before, take your card along to the station and vote. Zero checks in place. If someone wants to vote, this is no real barrier." The only way this isnt identified is if a fraudster knows for sure someone isn't voting. If someone can show an estimate of fraud versus an estimate of people who may vote because of ID, i could swing. But ATM, the number of fraud cases last year was something like 5 (and may have included postal anyway). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also don't buy that people cannot obtain ID. Especially seeing as free ID is available to anyone who needs one. So why can old people use their bus card or oyster card but young people can’t? I obviously have no idea. The fact remains though, free ID is available. NotMe cracked it. I don’t think anyone is saying there aren’t alternative forms of ID. What is being said is this creates yet another barrier on top of voter apathy AND there is no actual problem that needs solving. None! Wasted effort! Pretty sure we had this debate last year. My opinion is we have no idea how much fraud takes place as its never been checked before, take your card along to the station and vote. Zero checks in place. If someone wants to vote, this is no real barrier. The only way this isnt identified is if a fraudster knows for sure someone isn't voting. If someone can show an estimate of fraud versus an estimate of people who may vote because of ID, i could swing. But ATM, the number of fraud cases last year was something like 5 (and may have included postal anyway). " My brother doesn't vote but I could easily get his card and take it to the polling station. I'm not by any means saying it's rife, I'm just saying we have had no way to know. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It was a solution (to suppress voting by people unlikely to vote Tory) looking for a problem. Basically another thing to try and help the current Govt cling to power. so your saying labour voters dont have photo id or are incapable of registering for a certificate? If there that inept perhaps they shouldnt be near a polling booth No but people in lower socio demographic groups are far more likely to not vote Tory, and are far more likely to not hold a passport of driving licence. We already have significant voter apathy in the UK, so this just creates an additional barrier (cos people have to go and do something and many just won’t bother). Nobody has yet given me (anywhere, not here) an explanation why a senior citizen bus pass or oyster card IS acceptable for voting but a young person buss pass or oyster card is not? There is no explaination, other than they don't want younger people to vote as they know they'll be less likely to vote tory. " Why do you think the younger? If you have a smart phone you can get voter ID quit easily. The old that can't use tec will find it much harder as you need a digital photo to apply for a voter ID | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also don't buy that people cannot obtain ID. Especially seeing as free ID is available to anyone who needs one. So why can old people use their bus card or oyster card but young people can’t? I obviously have no idea. The fact remains though, free ID is available. NotMe cracked it. I don’t think anyone is saying there aren’t alternative forms of ID. What is being said is this creates yet another barrier on top of voter apathy AND there is no actual problem that needs solving. None! Wasted effort! Pretty sure we had this debate last year. My opinion is we have no idea how much fraud takes place as its never been checked before, take your card along to the station and vote. Zero checks in place. If someone wants to vote, this is no real barrier." In my local elections last year I was removed without consent from the electoral role by the government, along with I've had to re-register and upon checking this with my local electoral services I was told that my name was removed due to "identification reasons". So I suggest everyone checks before these local elections to make sure they've not been removed. My partner was also removed against her will and given a completely different excuse. What's going on in this country is shameless. We're not even in the top 20 for most democratically ran nations, and we're slipping further and further down the line. I dread to think the country my children will grow up in after the assault of the last 20 years. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also don't buy that people cannot obtain ID. Especially seeing as free ID is available to anyone who needs one. So why can old people use their bus card or oyster card but young people can’t? I obviously have no idea. The fact remains though, free ID is available. NotMe cracked it. I don’t think anyone is saying there aren’t alternative forms of ID. What is being said is this creates yet another barrier on top of voter apathy AND there is no actual problem that needs solving. None! Wasted effort! Pretty sure we had this debate last year. My opinion is we have no idea how much fraud takes place as its never been checked before, take your card along to the station and vote. Zero checks in place. If someone wants to vote, this is no real barrier. The only way this isnt identified is if a fraudster knows for sure someone isn't voting. If someone can show an estimate of fraud versus an estimate of people who may vote because of ID, i could swing. But ATM, the number of fraud cases last year was something like 5 (and may have included postal anyway). My brother doesn't vote but I could easily get his card and take it to the polling station. I'm not by any means saying it's rife, I'm just saying we have had no way to know." So register your brother for a potal vote and do it for him any way no I'd for postal vote.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I also don't buy that people cannot obtain ID. Especially seeing as free ID is available to anyone who needs one. So why can old people use their bus card or oyster card but young people can’t? I obviously have no idea. The fact remains though, free ID is available. NotMe cracked it. I don’t think anyone is saying there aren’t alternative forms of ID. What is being said is this creates yet another barrier on top of voter apathy AND there is no actual problem that needs solving. None! Wasted effort! Pretty sure we had this debate last year. My opinion is we have no idea how much fraud takes place as its never been checked before, take your card along to the station and vote. Zero checks in place. If someone wants to vote, this is no real barrier. The only way this isnt identified is if a fraudster knows for sure someone isn't voting. If someone can show an estimate of fraud versus an estimate of people who may vote because of ID, i could swing. But ATM, the number of fraud cases last year was something like 5 (and may have included postal anyway). My brother doesn't vote but I could easily get his card and take it to the polling station. I'm not by any means saying it's rife, I'm just saying we have had no way to know. So register your brother for a potal vote and do it for him any way no I'd for postal vote.." I could yeah. Why would I though, I'm not a fraudster. It's also not what I was saying. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It helps to make election fraud less likely. We do not buy the lie that minorities cannot obtain valid driving licenses." How does someone without the financial means to hire an instructor or own a car obtain a driving licence? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It helps to make election fraud less likely. We do not buy the lie that minorities cannot obtain valid driving licenses. How does someone without the financial means to hire an instructor or own a car obtain a driving licence?" Provisional | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It helps to make election fraud less likely. We do not buy the lie that minorities cannot obtain valid driving licenses. How does someone without the financial means to hire an instructor or own a car obtain a driving licence?" From experience of getting one for my daughter last year. Fill in an online form. Pay a nominal fee. Get provisional license in the post 4 days later. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It helps to make election fraud less likely. We do not buy the lie that minorities cannot obtain valid driving licenses. How does someone without the financial means to hire an instructor or own a car obtain a driving licence? From experience of getting one for my daughter last year. Fill in an online form. Pay a nominal fee. Get provisional license in the post 4 days later." she must have a passport. Otherwise you need to send ID thru the post. https://www.gov.uk/id-for-driving-licence | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It helps to make election fraud less likely. We do not buy the lie that minorities cannot obtain valid driving licenses. How does someone without the financial means to hire an instructor or own a car obtain a driving licence? From experience of getting one for my daughter last year. Fill in an online form. Pay a nominal fee. Get provisional license in the post 4 days later.she must have a passport. Otherwise you need to send ID thru the post. https://www.gov.uk/id-for-driving-licence " Of course she does. Had one since she was a few months old. How could we travel Europe in the summer and go skiing in the winter otherwise? 
She is also on the electoral register even though she is too young to vote.
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It helps to make election fraud less likely. We do not buy the lie that minorities cannot obtain valid driving licenses. How does someone without the financial means to hire an instructor or own a car obtain a driving licence? From experience of getting one for my daughter last year. Fill in an online form. Pay a nominal fee. Get provisional license in the post 4 days later.she must have a passport. Otherwise you need to send ID thru the post. https://www.gov.uk/id-for-driving-licence Of course she does. Had one since she was a few months old. How could we travel Europe in the summer and go skiing in the winter otherwise?
She is also on the electoral register even though she is too young to vote.
"she's lucky to have you as parents. But if you want a licence just to get photo ID, it's 35 quid and sending stuff of by post. And by the looks of it, thst has to be your birth certificate. I'd be screwed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It helps to make election fraud less likely. We do not buy the lie that minorities cannot obtain valid driving licenses. How does someone without the financial means to hire an instructor or own a car obtain a driving licence? From experience of getting one for my daughter last year. Fill in an online form. Pay a nominal fee. Get provisional license in the post 4 days later.she must have a passport. Otherwise you need to send ID thru the post. https://www.gov.uk/id-for-driving-licence Of course she does. Had one since she was a few months old. How could we travel Europe in the summer and go skiing in the winter otherwise?
She is also on the electoral register even though she is too young to vote.
she's lucky to have you as parents.
But if you want a licence just to get photo ID, it's 35 quid and sending stuff of by post.
And by the looks of it, thst has to be your birth certificate. I'd be screwed. "Isn't getting a passport one of the first things to be done when you have children? Register birth, get passport. Easy as all the paperwork is to hand. They only last for 5 years though so you must remember to renew them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It was a solution (to suppress voting by people unlikely to vote Tory) looking for a problem. Basically another thing to try and help the current Govt cling to power. so your saying labour voters dont have photo id or are incapable of registering for a certificate? If there that inept perhaps they shouldnt be near a polling boothor are unlikely to realise there is this new requirement. Do you believe that every person is equally likely to have ID or be capable of registration? " if they dont reqlise by now they need to get a certificate or photo i.d then they have been walking round with there eyes shut, christ im not even on the electoral roll but even i know you need id for the coming local elections, i dont see why the goverment should have to hold peoples hands in every part of there life, if your over 18 yoir an adult and should really be taking responsibility for yourself | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It helps to make election fraud less likely. We do not buy the lie that minorities cannot obtain valid driving licenses. How does someone without the financial means to hire an instructor or own a car obtain a driving licence? From experience of getting one for my daughter last year. Fill in an online form. Pay a nominal fee. Get provisional license in the post 4 days later." So you need a postal address, right? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It was a solution (to suppress voting by people unlikely to vote Tory) looking for a problem. Basically another thing to try and help the current Govt cling to power. so your saying labour voters dont have photo id or are incapable of registering for a certificate? If there that inept perhaps they shouldnt be near a polling boothor are unlikely to realise there is this new requirement. Do you believe that every person is equally likely to have ID or be capable of registration? if they dont reqlise by now they need to get a certificate or photo i.d then they have been walking round with there eyes shut, christ im not even on the electoral roll but even i know you need id for the coming local elections, i dont see why the goverment should have to hold peoples hands in every part of there life, if your over 18 yoir an adult and should really be taking responsibility for yourself" someone should tell Boris this ! And WASPI The second question is more important to the point I was making. To assume there will be no political bias from this you either have to assume that everyone is equally likely to not have ID and be incapable to register ... Or it's different likelihoods bit evenly split across all manner of cohorts. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It helps to make election fraud less likely. We do not buy the lie that minorities cannot obtain valid driving licenses. How does someone without the financial means to hire an instructor or own a car obtain a driving licence? From experience of getting one for my daughter last year. Fill in an online form. Pay a nominal fee. Get provisional license in the post 4 days later.she must have a passport. Otherwise you need to send ID thru the post. https://www.gov.uk/id-for-driving-licence Of course she does. Had one since she was a few months old. How could we travel Europe in the summer and go skiing in the winter otherwise?
She is also on the electoral register even though she is too young to vote.
she's lucky to have you as parents.
But if you want a licence just to get photo ID, it's 35 quid and sending stuff of by post.
And by the looks of it, thst has to be your birth certificate. I'd be screwed.
Isn't getting a passport one of the first things to be done when you have children? Register birth, get passport. Easy as all the paperwork is to hand.
They only last for 5 years though so you must remember to renew them."Passport ownership in the UK sits roughly around 80% of the population. Guess which people are most likely to be in the 20% (ish) that don’t? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Despite no evidence of large scale election fraud, everyone voting in person in English local elections on 4 May will need to show identification. Since 2018, there have been nine convictions and six police cautions issued in connection with cases of electoral fraud, according to the Electoral Commission. The new rules require prospective voters to take a photo ID to get their ballot papers. Is this simply to stop the risk of fraud or is there some other motive behind the introduction of photo ID's for voting? Will we see a smaller turnout due to people not having documents with a photo ID and, if there is a lower turnout, what is the likely political breakdown of those who already have photo ID's (including passports) and those who do not (and simply cannot be bothered to register with their local council prior to 25 April for a voter authority certificate)? Who would have ever thought that in England we would be required to carry a photo ID to excercise our basic right to vote?" It's actually quite difficult to prove voter fraud. I won't be surprised to see postal votes increase as this takes hold to get around the requirement. The main problem seems to be the stories of getting people to turn up at voting stations and being paid/ pushed toward voting one way | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It was a solution (to suppress voting by people unlikely to vote Tory) looking for a problem. Basically another thing to try and help the current Govt cling to power. so your saying labour voters dont have photo id or are incapable of registering for a certificate? If there that inept perhaps they shouldnt be near a polling boothor are unlikely to realise there is this new requirement. Do you believe that every person is equally likely to have ID or be capable of registration? " They all are. You are given reminders imthe post, on tv radio etc etc. Every 1 in the uk has the ability to register for the ID this has been well advertised for years. There's no excuse other than laziness for not having ID | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It helps to make election fraud less likely. We do not buy the lie that minorities cannot obtain valid driving licenses. How does someone without the financial means to hire an instructor or own a car obtain a driving licence? From experience of getting one for my daughter last year. Fill in an online form. Pay a nominal fee. Get provisional license in the post 4 days later.she must have a passport. Otherwise you need to send ID thru the post. https://www.gov.uk/id-for-driving-licence Of course she does. Had one since she was a few months old. How could we travel Europe in the summer and go skiing in the winter otherwise?
She is also on the electoral register even though she is too young to vote.
she's lucky to have you as parents.
But if you want a licence just to get photo ID, it's 35 quid and sending stuff of by post.
And by the looks of it, thst has to be your birth certificate. I'd be screwed.
Isn't getting a passport one of the first things to be done when you have children? Register birth, get passport. Easy as all the paperwork is to hand.
They only last for 5 years though so you must remember to renew them.
Passport ownership in the UK sits roughly around 80% of the population. Guess which people are most likely to be in the 20% (ish) that don’t?"51.6m people in the uk have a passport. That's about 86.5% I imagine most the other that don't are under 18 or senile. Postal voting will be where most the fraud happens or vote by proxy. My grand parents are both I their 90s and senile. My mother organised their postal voting. But it would be VERY easy for my mother to vote however she wanted for them | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Despite no evidence of large scale election fraud, everyone voting in person in English local elections on 4 May will need to show identification. Since 2018, there have been nine convictions and six police cautions issued in connection with cases of electoral fraud, according to the Electoral Commission. The new rules require prospective voters to take a photo ID to get their ballot papers. Is this simply to stop the risk of fraud or is there some other motive behind the introduction of photo ID's for voting? Will we see a smaller turnout due to people not having documents with a photo ID and, if there is a lower turnout, what is the likely political breakdown of those who already have photo ID's (including passports) and those who do not (and simply cannot be bothered to register with their local council prior to 25 April for a voter authority certificate)? Who would have ever thought that in England we would be required to carry a photo ID to excercise our basic right to vote? It's actually quite difficult to prove voter fraud. I won't be surprised to see postal votes increase as this takes hold to get around the requirement. The main problem seems to be the stories of getting people to turn up at voting stations and being paid/ pushed toward voting one way " it is challenging.... But not impossible. I'd have thought you'd be demanding some evidence. You'd imagine there would be some cases of people turning up to vote to have found their vote had been taken. I wonder if there is a way via surveying ? But as others have said, postal would be the better route for mass fraud. What effort is being made there ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Despite no evidence of large scale election fraud, everyone voting in person in English local elections on 4 May will need to show identification. Since 2018, there have been nine convictions and six police cautions issued in connection with cases of electoral fraud, according to the Electoral Commission. The new rules require prospective voters to take a photo ID to get their ballot papers. Is this simply to stop the risk of fraud or is there some other motive behind the introduction of photo ID's for voting? Will we see a smaller turnout due to people not having documents with a photo ID and, if there is a lower turnout, what is the likely political breakdown of those who already have photo ID's (including passports) and those who do not (and simply cannot be bothered to register with their local council prior to 25 April for a voter authority certificate)? Who would have ever thought that in England we would be required to carry a photo ID to excercise our basic right to vote? It's actually quite difficult to prove voter fraud. I won't be surprised to see postal votes increase as this takes hold to get around the requirement. The main problem seems to be the stories of getting people to turn up at voting stations and being paid/ pushed toward voting one way it is challenging.... But not impossible. I'd have thought you'd be demanding some evidence. You'd imagine there would be some cases of people turning up to vote to have found their vote had been taken. I wonder if there is a way via surveying ? But as others have said, postal would be the better route for mass fraud. What effort is being made there ? " See how I said stories. I didn't say it was happening. That's because indont have evidence.
The only way of checking is monitoring polling stations.
You don't need 4 people inside. 1 person can be outside. Making sure no one is being coerced.
Like I say I imagine it will switch to postal voting. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It was a solution (to suppress voting by people unlikely to vote Tory) looking for a problem. Basically another thing to try and help the current Govt cling to power. so your saying labour voters dont have photo id or are incapable of registering for a certificate? If there that inept perhaps they shouldnt be near a polling boothor are unlikely to realise there is this new requirement. Do you believe that every person is equally likely to have ID or be capable of registration? They all are. You are given reminders imthe post, on tv radio etc etc. Every 1 in the uk has the ability to register for the ID this has been well advertised for years. There's no excuse other than laziness for not having ID " Just a senirio my mother is 80 and had to give up her driving licence. She dose not use the bus as in the countryside a taxi when she needs to go shopping is as cost effective as having a car. She has not had a passport for some 20 years as dad passed 15 years ago. She dose not have a mobile phone at all. I asked if she had Photo ID no she dose not how dose she get one? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Every one ca register for a free form of ID to vote. I explained this also time. Around October. "Apply for photo ID to vote It’s free to apply. You’ll need: a recent, digital photo of yourself your National Insurance number"" So how do the poor and old get a digital photo free. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Every one ca register for a free form of ID to vote. I explained this also time. Around October. "Apply for photo ID to vote It’s free to apply. You’ll need: a recent, digital photo of yourself your National Insurance number" So how do the poor and old get a digital photo free." Does she have a bus pass? Does she have any of the below Older Person’s Bus Pass funded by the Government of the United Kingdom Disabled Person’s Bus Pass funded by the Government of the United Kingdom Oyster 60+ Card funded by the Government of the United Kingdom Freedom Pass Scottish National Entitlement Card 60 and Over Welsh Concessionary Travel Card Disabled Person’s Welsh Concessionary Travel Card Senior SmartPass issued in Northern Ireland Registered Blind SmartPass or Blind Person’s SmartPass issued in Northern Ireland War Disablement SmartPass issued in Northern Ireland 60+ SmartPass issued in Northern Ireland Half Fare SmartPass issued in Northern Ireland | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Every one ca register for a free form of ID to vote. I explained this also time. Around October. "Apply for photo ID to vote It’s free to apply. You’ll need: a recent, digital photo of yourself your National Insurance number" So how do the poor and old get a digital photo free. Does she have a bus pass? Does she have any of the below Older Person’s Bus Pass funded by the Government of the United Kingdom Disabled Person’s Bus Pass funded by the Government of the United Kingdom Oyster 60+ Card funded by the Government of the United Kingdom Freedom Pass Scottish National Entitlement Card 60 and Over Welsh Concessionary Travel Card Disabled Person’s Welsh Concessionary Travel Card Senior SmartPass issued in Northern Ireland Registered Blind SmartPass or Blind Person’s SmartPass issued in Northern Ireland War Disablement SmartPass issued in Northern Ireland 60+ SmartPass issued in Northern Ireland Half Fare SmartPass issued in Northern Ireland" No No to all. Can I ask what is an Oyster apat from food that is. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am not entirely sure why you have ditched all your Mothers ID. I would say thays pretty abhorrent. " I haven't but she dose not need any until now. Would you pay for a passport and driving license you don't youe she has a library card even though they close the library service but it is not a photo one ID. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I can not fathom why as a child of your parents you have let them not apply for a bus pass, ID card, passport. You can still apply for the local council certificate. I assume you have a smartphone. Access to library compute.since you are eon here. Local libraries will help you. You say she gets taxis? " Yer when I said I'd do it with her on my phone she said it's just not worth the effort. Hence I feel its good you should be able to walk in to the council office and they can do it for you then it's free to all. Poor and old alike. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am not entirely sure why you have ditched all your Mothers ID. I would say thays pretty abhorrent. I haven't but she dose not need any until now. Would you pay for a passport and driving license you don't youe she has a library card even though they close the library service but it is not a photo one ID. " Libraries are wonderful places. They have a lot of helpful people there. They run community support hubs. For example people who can't afford condoms or sanitary towels etc can get them from there. Food stamps Financial advice. Tutoring Advice on how to apply for passports online. How to apply for citizenship. A library isn't just for books anymore. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It says on here you're in hastings. Is that where mother lives pr you can take her there? There's a citizens advice at renaissance House " Yes I'm out side hastings as is she but there are lots of the old with out tec that just won't bother I'll probably get her on to post vote as I do as to vote its about a 20min drive and I'm normally working. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I say any citizens advice and library will help her get whatbshe needs to vote. I've no idea why you have left this until the last minute." Until I herd it on radio 2 this week and then saw it hear I did not know this was a even a thing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I say any citizens advice and library will help her get whatbshe needs to vote. I've no idea why you have left this until the last minute. Until I herd it on radio 2 this week and then saw it hear I did not know this was a even a thing." I find this very hard to believe. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am not entirely sure why you have ditched all your Mothers ID. I would say thays pretty abhorrent. I haven't but she dose not need any until now. Would you pay for a passport and driving license you don't youe she has a library card even though they close the library service but it is not a photo one ID. Libraries are wonderful places. They have a lot of helpful people there. They run community support hubs. For example people who can't afford condoms or sanitary towels etc can get them from there. Food stamps Financial advice. Tutoring Advice on how to apply for passports online. How to apply for citizenship. A library isn't just for books anymore. " As said they have shut the 2 close to us and stopped the mobile service so libery has been taken away. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I say any citizens advice and library will help her get whatbshe needs to vote. I've no idea why you have left this until the last minute. Until I herd it on radio 2 this week and then saw it hear I did not know this was a even a thing. I find this very hard to believe." Why when did you know about it and how. Oyster apart from food. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am not entirely sure why you have ditched all your Mothers ID. I would say thays pretty abhorrent. I haven't but she dose not need any until now. Would you pay for a passport and driving license you don't youe she has a library card even though they close the library service but it is not a photo one ID. Libraries are wonderful places. They have a lot of helpful people there. They run community support hubs. For example people who can't afford condoms or sanitary towels etc can get them from there. Food stamps Financial advice. Tutoring Advice on how to apply for passports online. How to apply for citizenship. A library isn't just for books anymore. As said they have shut the 2 close to us and stopped the mobile service so libery has been taken away. " But she gets taxis? Doesn't she? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I say any citizens advice and library will help her get whatbshe needs to vote. I've no idea why you have left this until the last minute. Until I herd it on radio 2 this week and then saw it hear I did not know this was a even a thing. I find this very hard to believe. Why when did you know about it and how. Oyster apart from food." For 2/3 years. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am not entirely sure why you have ditched all your Mothers ID. I would say thays pretty abhorrent. I haven't but she dose not need any until now. Would you pay for a passport and driving license you don't youe she has a library card even though they close the library service but it is not a photo one ID. Libraries are wonderful places. They have a lot of helpful people there. They run community support hubs. For example people who can't afford condoms or sanitary towels etc can get them from there. Food stamps Financial advice. Tutoring Advice on how to apply for passports online. How to apply for citizenship. A library isn't just for books anymore. As said they have shut the 2 close to us and stopped the mobile service so libery has been taken away. But she gets taxis? Doesn't she?" Yer once a week to tesco and back shears with a friend. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I say any citizens advice and library will help her get whatbshe needs to vote. I've no idea why you have left this until the last minute. Until I herd it on radio 2 this week and then saw it hear I did not know this was a even a thing. I find this very hard to believe. Why when did you know about it and how. Oyster apart from food. For 2/3 years." How did you know I know I work to much but really did not know. So will ask again what is Oyster.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I say any citizens advice and library will help her get whatbshe needs to vote. I've no idea why you have left this until the last minute. Until I herd it on radio 2 this week and then saw it hear I did not know this was a even a thing. I find this very hard to believe. Why when did you know about it and how. Oyster apart from food. For 2/3 years. How did you know I know I work to much but really did not know. So will ask again what is Oyster.." This was being discussed back in 2018 as a policy. It was the part of the tory manifesto "We will protect the integrity of our democracy, by introducing identification to vote at polling stations, stopping postal vote harvesting and measures to prevent any foreign interference in elections" It has then been in Parliament multiple time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I say any citizens advice and library will help her get whatbshe needs to vote. I've no idea why you have left this until the last minute. Until I herd it on radio 2 this week and then saw it hear I did not know this was a even a thing. I find this very hard to believe. Why when did you know about it and how. Oyster apart from food. For 2/3 years. How did you know I know I work to much but really did not know. So will ask again what is Oyster.." Oyster card is a prepaid travel card you can use on TFL. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I say any citizens advice and library will help her get whatbshe needs to vote. I've no idea why you have left this until the last minute. Until I herd it on radio 2 this week and then saw it hear I did not know this was a even a thing. I find this very hard to believe. Why when did you know about it and how. Oyster apart from food. For 2/3 years. How did you know I know I work to much but really did not know. So will ask again what is Oyster.. This was being discussed back in 2018 as a policy. It was the part of the tory manifesto "We will protect the integrity of our democracy, by introducing identification to vote at polling stations, stopping postal vote harvesting and measures to prevent any foreign interference in elections" It has then been in Parliament multiple time." If thay stop postal voting that will be me out as seam to be away when voting happens but am out of UK for quite alot of a year with work ETC | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I say any citizens advice and library will help her get whatbshe needs to vote. I've no idea why you have left this until the last minute. Until I herd it on radio 2 this week and then saw it hear I did not know this was a even a thing. I find this very hard to believe. Why when did you know about it and how. Oyster apart from food. For 2/3 years. How did you know I know I work to much but really did not know. So will ask again what is Oyster.. Oyster card is a prepaid travel card you can use on TFL. " Oh OK thanks never had one probably never need one. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I say any citizens advice and library will help her get whatbshe needs to vote. I've no idea why you have left this until the last minute. Until I herd it on radio 2 this week and then saw it hear I did not know this was a even a thing. I find this very hard to believe. Why when did you know about it and how. Oyster apart from food. For 2/3 years. How did you know I know I work to much but really did not know. So will ask again what is Oyster.." The Oyster card is a payment method for public transport in London. A standard Oyster card is a blue credit-card-sized stored-value contactless smart card. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I say any citizens advice and library will help her get whatbshe needs to vote. I've no idea why you have left this until the last minute. Until I herd it on radio 2 this week and then saw it hear I did not know this was a even a thing. I find this very hard to believe. Why when did you know about it and how. Oyster apart from food. For 2/3 years. How did you know I know I work to much but really did not know. So will ask again what is Oyster.. Oyster card is a prepaid travel card you can use on TFL. Oh OK thanks never had one probably never need one. " If you Google: "Voter Authority Certificate helpline" it is a free phone number, they will be able to explain all your mum's options and get things moving for you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It helps to make election fraud less likely. We do not buy the lie that minorities cannot obtain valid driving licenses. How does someone without the financial means to hire an instructor or own a car obtain a driving licence? From experience of getting one for my daughter last year. Fill in an online form. Pay a nominal fee. Get provisional license in the post 4 days later.she must have a passport. Otherwise you need to send ID thru the post. https://www.gov.uk/id-for-driving-licence Of course she does. Had one since she was a few months old. How could we travel Europe in the summer and go skiing in the winter otherwise?
She is also on the electoral register even though she is too young to vote.
she's lucky to have you as parents.
But if you want a licence just to get photo ID, it's 35 quid and sending stuff of by post.
And by the looks of it, thst has to be your birth certificate. I'd be screwed.
Isn't getting a passport one of the first things to be done when you have children? Register birth, get passport. Easy as all the paperwork is to hand.
They only last for 5 years though so you must remember to renew them.
Passport ownership in the UK sits roughly around 80% of the population. Guess which people are most likely to be in the 20% (ish) that don’t?
51.6m people in the uk have a passport.
That's about 86.5% I imagine most the other that don't are under 18 or senile.
Postal voting will be where most the fraud happens or vote by proxy.
My grand parents are both I their 90s and senile. My mother organised their postal voting. But it would be VERY easy for my mother to vote however she wanted for them"I think that number includes child passports (would need to check). A large chunk of those who do not own a passport are in poorer socio-demographics. Also passport ownership dropped during the pandemic as some people opted not to renew due to lack of foreign travel. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I say any citizens advice and library will help her get whatbshe needs to vote. I've no idea why you have left this until the last minute. Until I herd it on radio 2 this week and then saw it hear I did not know this was a even a thing. I find this very hard to believe. Why when did you know about it and how. Oyster apart from food. For 2/3 years. How did you know I know I work to much but really did not know. So will ask again what is Oyster.. Oyster card is a prepaid travel card you can use on TFL. Oh OK thanks never had one probably never need one. If you Google: "Voter Authority Certificate helpline" it is a free phone number, they will be able to explain all your mum's options and get things moving for you." As said it was a sinario mum past last year but everything else would have applied to her and I think there are meany would fall in to this situation to old to drive no need for a passport. I sometimes struggle with ID for work proof of address within 3 months when for me everything is on line. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So slightly of topic is it fraud if your out of UK and the wife or house keeper dose your postal vote as you wish. " Yes | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It helps to make election fraud less likely. We do not buy the lie that minorities cannot obtain valid driving licenses. How does someone without the financial means to hire an instructor or own a car obtain a driving licence? From experience of getting one for my daughter last year. Fill in an online form. Pay a nominal fee. Get provisional license in the post 4 days later.she must have a passport. Otherwise you need to send ID thru the post. https://www.gov.uk/id-for-driving-licence Of course she does. Had one since she was a few months old. How could we travel Europe in the summer and go skiing in the winter otherwise?
She is also on the electoral register even though she is too young to vote.
she's lucky to have you as parents.
But if you want a licence just to get photo ID, it's 35 quid and sending stuff of by post.
And by the looks of it, thst has to be your birth certificate. I'd be screwed.
Isn't getting a passport one of the first things to be done when you have children? Register birth, get passport. Easy as all the paperwork is to hand.
They only last for 5 years though so you must remember to renew them.
Passport ownership in the UK sits roughly around 80% of the population. Guess which people are most likely to be in the 20% (ish) that don’t?
51.6m people in the uk have a passport.
That's about 86.5% I imagine most the other that don't are under 18 or senile.
Postal voting will be where most the fraud happens or vote by proxy.
My grand parents are both I their 90s and senile. My mother organised their postal voting. But it would be VERY easy for my mother to vote however she wanted for them
I think that number includes child passports (would need to check). A large chunk of those who do not own a passport are in poorer socio-demographics. Also passport ownership dropped during the pandemic as some people opted not to renew due to lack of foreign travel."This was from the census in 2021. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So slightly of topic is it fraud if your out of UK and the wife or house keeper dose your postal vote as you wish." "Yes" No it isn't, you can register a proxy voter if you can't get there yourself. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So slightly of topic is it fraud if your out of UK and the wife or house keeper dose your postal vote as you wish. Yes No it isn't, you can register a proxy voter if you can't get there yourself." That's not what the poster asked | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I say any citizens advice and library will help her get whatbshe needs to vote. I've no idea why you have left this until the last minute. Until I herd it on radio 2 this week and then saw it hear I did not know this was a even a thing." There will be many scenarios and stories with these elections given this is the first time needing ID. Your mother's situation highlights it is not just the young that may take time to adapt but the older people too. I have often seen on here it said that the older generation are more likely to vote conservative and loose votes as a result (I'm not saying your mother does). Swings and roundabouts I think is an apt saying. Anyway I'm sure you will assist your mother to vote should she wish to | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So slightly of topic is it fraud if your out of UK and the wife or house keeper dose your postal vote as you wish. Yes No it isn't, you can register a proxy voter if you can't get there yourself. That's not what the poster asked " No and I never know where or when the next job is so need a proxy voter but how. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So slightly of topic is it fraud if your out of UK and the wife or house keeper dose your postal vote as you wish. Yes No it isn't, you can register a proxy voter if you can't get there yourself. That's not what the poster asked No and I never know where or when the next job is so need a proxy voter but how." Google proxy voting uk | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It helps to make election fraud less likely. We do not buy the lie that minorities cannot obtain valid driving licenses. Voter fraud is a myth. Go look it up. The numbers are so small it is totally inconsequential. There has only been ONE prosecution for voter fraud. ONE!" Then maybe only ONE has been actually identified and others may have slipped through?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It helps to make election fraud less likely. We do not buy the lie that minorities cannot obtain valid driving licenses. Voter fraud is a myth. Go look it up. The numbers are so small it is totally inconsequential. There has only been ONE prosecution for voter fraud. ONE! Then maybe only ONE has been actually identified and others may have slipped through??" Possibly but there is no statistical indication this was/is an issue. All suspected voter fraud that has been investigated has resulted in “case dismissed” (barring that one). It’s a non-issue to me personally as I drive and travel abroad so need relevant docs. Just think there are other more pressing things that Govt should have focused on for now. Slightly tangential but I would make voting mandatory (which would probably require photo ID so it could be logged but to me that creates a genuine need). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""....and measures to prevent any foreign interference in elections" " The one place where it has actually been proven that there is extensive fraud, foreign interference and payment for votes is among members of the government. I note a singular lack of any effort to stamp out this known major level of crime in the democratic process, meanwhile hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers money have been spent on this voter photo ID move. The only effective way to clean up our democratic system would be to jail every MP that takes bribe money (they use euphemisms such as "consultation fees" but lets call it what it is, bribes taken by criminals), and any cabinet member found to be doing this (almost every one of them since Johnson) should be given the most severe sentences. When the PM does it, it should be treated as being a crime against the entire country, imho being stripped of citizenship and all their assets would be letting them off very lightly. This whole voter photo ID issue is nothing but gaslighting from a corrupt government. Deflecting attention from their own openly known criminal activities towards people that do not own a passport or a driving license because they often cannot even afford to eat properly never mind go on foreign holidays or own a car. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is a vanishingly small level of voter fraud. Based on this lack of evidence, a significant change in the electoral process is taking place. It will negatively effect the already most disenfranchised the most. It will negatively effect those least likely to vote for the party currently in power the most. It will cost local authorities significantly more to monitor. There's no more to it than that. We'll see the post election stats. Will it be a good thing if voting falls in the demographic groups where it is expected to without any associated reduction in voter fraud?" I'm all for Australian style if you wish to make people vote through threat of a fine. How will it cost the authorities? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If memory serves me correctly, to be able to vote, you have to be on the electoral role. If there, you are sent a voting paper which entitles you to attend a polling station (postal votes are different). You attend the polling station and hand in the voting paper then are asked for your name and address which the clerk matches against the list he has. Your name is scored out and you are given a voting slip which you then mark in the booth, placing the completed paper in a sealed box. This system seems pretty secure to me! The addition of a photo ID means that the clerk has to check it complies with the list of acceptable ID's and check that the details and the photo match both you and the information they have. Another step in what seemed to me to be a secure enough system and given the number of reported fraudulent attempts over the last few years, pretty pointless. As has already been mooted, there will be people who will see this as another barrier to voting and simply will not bother and others who will naively turn up without an ID and be turned away. They are unlikely to go home, get an ID and return to the polling station. The likelihood is that there will be a greater number of people turned away or who simply cannot be bothered with another bureaucratic hurdle than there were those who fraudulently voted. For a country that voted against control from Brussels, which is shocked at the prospect of the proposed passport requirements to enter the EU (which are already in place in the USA) and has been very much against the carrying of ID cards due to fear of "Big Brother", the glib acceptance of voter ID cards is quite surprising. " I have always taken my voting slip with me but never been asked for it. I know the names and address of people locally that never vote, so it is possible to just say their name and use their vote as no other checks are done. Or I could give that info to others. It is far from a secure system. That said it does not seem to be being abused. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It helps to make election fraud less likely. We do not buy the lie that minorities cannot obtain valid driving licenses. How does someone without the financial means to hire an instructor or own a car obtain a driving licence?" You mean a person who can't scrape £34 to apply for a provisional licence online? Seriously? 
As said, if a person is not able to save that much up over a year then voting is going to be the absolute last thing on their mind. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And second thought. I wonder what the reaction would have been of this was introduced before the brexit vote ... And if the result would have changed ..." Ok I have changed my mind. Voter fraud is clearly and obviously a problem in the UK. The Brexit Referendum was rife with it so we need to bring in Voter ID and then rerun the referendum. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Dont vote and see what happens" Five more years of Tory rule. Which is inevitable anyway. So I see your point. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"And second thought. I wonder what the reaction would have been of this was introduced before the brexit vote ... And if the result would have changed ... Ok I have changed my mind. Voter fraud is clearly and obviously a problem in the UK. The Brexit Referendum was rife with it so we need to bring in Voter ID and then rerun the referendum. "Oh really?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Dont vote and see what happens" It is your registration to vote they seek not your vote. Harassment if you don't register and f all if you don't vote.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Dont vote and see what happens It is your registration to vote they seek not your vote. Harassment if you don't register and f all if you don't vote. "I do postal vote don't no why its not able to be done online if you opt in for it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Threadromancy... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-65570851 So while apparent (non existent) voter fraud meant the Tories insisted on bringing in voter ID, in a Tory held council there was a “genuine mistake” where they lost and did not count the postal ballots (you know the ones that don’t need voter ID). Hmmmm?" Are you somehow suggesting the Tories made these votes 'disappear' for long enough to discount them? If not, why does it matter that its a Tory held council? I'm not sure how it works exactly but surely the councillors aren't in control of storage until count day. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Threadromancy... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-65570851 So while apparent (non existent) voter fraud meant the Tories insisted on bringing in voter ID, in a Tory held council there was a “genuine mistake” where they lost and did not count the postal ballots (you know the ones that don’t need voter ID). Hmmmm? Are you somehow suggesting the Tories made these votes 'disappear' for long enough to discount them? If not, why does it matter that its a Tory held council? I'm not sure how it works exactly but surely the councillors aren't in control of storage until count day." Not suggesting anything but the number of “lost” postal votes was significant enough that if counted may have changed the outcome of the result. Just ironic considering the false hoo hah over needing voter ID! These “lost” postal votes cannot be counted now as they have declared. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Threadromancy... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-65570851 So while apparent (non existent) voter fraud meant the Tories insisted on bringing in voter ID, in a Tory held council there was a “genuine mistake” where they lost and did not count the postal ballots (you know the ones that don’t need voter ID). Hmmmm? Are you somehow suggesting the Tories made these votes 'disappear' for long enough to discount them? If not, why does it matter that its a Tory held council? I'm not sure how it works exactly but surely the councillors aren't in control of storage until count day. Not suggesting anything but the number of “lost” postal votes was significant enough that if counted may have changed the outcome of the result. Just ironic considering the false hoo hah over needing voter ID! These “lost” postal votes cannot be counted now as they have declared." Got ya. Then see my second question  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Threadromancy... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-65570851 So while apparent (non existent) voter fraud meant the Tories insisted on bringing in voter ID, in a Tory held council there was a “genuine mistake” where they lost and did not count the postal ballots (you know the ones that don’t need voter ID). Hmmmm? Are you somehow suggesting the Tories made these votes 'disappear' for long enough to discount them? If not, why does it matter that its a Tory held council? I'm not sure how it works exactly but surely the councillors aren't in control of storage until count day. Not suggesting anything but the number of “lost” postal votes was significant enough that if counted may have changed the outcome of the result. Just ironic considering the false hoo hah over needing voter ID! These “lost” postal votes cannot be counted now as they have declared. Got ya. Then see my second question "Are trying to say the Councillors themselves hid the postal votes? There will be a network of people and perhaps some know each other or perhaps some have a vested interest? However, I am sure it was just a genuine mistake. But it just goes to show that posts on here dismissing voter ID as a problem for people because they can postal vote has now been shown to be open to abuse (deliberate or otherwise). If I had been one of those who postal voted and wanted a different outcome, I would be pretty pissed off. Perhaps the problem isn’t ID? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Threadromancy... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-65570851 So while apparent (non existent) voter fraud meant the Tories insisted on bringing in voter ID, in a Tory held council there was a “genuine mistake” where they lost and did not count the postal ballots (you know the ones that don’t need voter ID). Hmmmm? Are you somehow suggesting the Tories made these votes 'disappear' for long enough to discount them? If not, why does it matter that its a Tory held council? I'm not sure how it works exactly but surely the councillors aren't in control of storage until count day. Not suggesting anything but the number of “lost” postal votes was significant enough that if counted may have changed the outcome of the result. Just ironic considering the false hoo hah over needing voter ID! These “lost” postal votes cannot be counted now as they have declared. Got ya. Then see my second question
Are trying to say the Councillors themselves hid the postal votes? There will be a network of people and perhaps some know each other or perhaps some have a vested interest? However, I am sure it was just a genuine mistake. But it just goes to show that posts on here dismissing voter ID as a problem for people because they can postal vote has now been shown to be open to abuse (deliberate or otherwise). If I had been one of those who postal voted and wanted a different outcome, I would be pretty pissed off. Perhaps the problem isn’t ID?"That wasn't my second question but thanks for the in depth answer. I don't disagree that the problem isn't ID, I actually don't think there was a problem in the first place, I just have no issue with ID. And of course there's going to be mishaps. From what we know atm 1 council 'lost' some votes, although significant, are we now suggesting that postal voting should be disbanded? As far as I have read in your link the EC are investigation and the councillors can make a complaint to the courts, not sure what happens after that though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Threadromancy... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-65570851 So while apparent (non existent) voter fraud meant the Tories insisted on bringing in voter ID, in a Tory held council there was a “genuine mistake” where they lost and did not count the postal ballots (you know the ones that don’t need voter ID). Hmmmm? Are you somehow suggesting the Tories made these votes 'disappear' for long enough to discount them? If not, why does it matter that its a Tory held council? I'm not sure how it works exactly but surely the councillors aren't in control of storage until count day. Not suggesting anything but the number of “lost” postal votes was significant enough that if counted may have changed the outcome of the result. Just ironic considering the false hoo hah over needing voter ID! These “lost” postal votes cannot be counted now as they have declared. Got ya. Then see my second question
Are trying to say the Councillors themselves hid the postal votes? There will be a network of people and perhaps some know each other or perhaps some have a vested interest? However, I am sure it was just a genuine mistake. But it just goes to show that posts on here dismissing voter ID as a problem for people because they can postal vote has now been shown to be open to abuse (deliberate or otherwise). If I had been one of those who postal voted and wanted a different outcome, I would be pretty pissed off. Perhaps the problem isn’t ID?
That wasn't my second question but thanks for the in depth answer.
I don't disagree that the problem isn't ID, I actually don't think there was a problem in the first place, I just have no issue with ID. And of course there's going to be mishaps.
From what we know atm 1 council 'lost' some votes, although significant, are we now suggesting that postal voting should be disbanded?
As far as I have read in your link the EC are investigation and the councillors can make a complaint to the courts, not sure what happens after that though. "Well the Tories pushed through voter ID based on a minuscule number of fraud cases. So I hope they will now give the same attention to postal voting? Oh wait, voter ID disproportionately impacted lower income people who are more likely to not vote tory. Oh and postal voting also tends to be uses more by people who do not vote tory so I doubt anything will change. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Threadromancy... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-65570851 So while apparent (non existent) voter fraud meant the Tories insisted on bringing in voter ID, in a Tory held council there was a “genuine mistake” where they lost and did not count the postal ballots (you know the ones that don’t need voter ID). Hmmmm? Are you somehow suggesting the Tories made these votes 'disappear' for long enough to discount them? If not, why does it matter that its a Tory held council? I'm not sure how it works exactly but surely the councillors aren't in control of storage until count day. Not suggesting anything but the number of “lost” postal votes was significant enough that if counted may have changed the outcome of the result. Just ironic considering the false hoo hah over needing voter ID! These “lost” postal votes cannot be counted now as they have declared. Got ya. Then see my second question
Are trying to say the Councillors themselves hid the postal votes? There will be a network of people and perhaps some know each other or perhaps some have a vested interest? However, I am sure it was just a genuine mistake. But it just goes to show that posts on here dismissing voter ID as a problem for people because they can postal vote has now been shown to be open to abuse (deliberate or otherwise). If I had been one of those who postal voted and wanted a different outcome, I would be pretty pissed off. Perhaps the problem isn’t ID?
That wasn't my second question but thanks for the in depth answer.
I don't disagree that the problem isn't ID, I actually don't think there was a problem in the first place, I just have no issue with ID. And of course there's going to be mishaps.
From what we know atm 1 council 'lost' some votes, although significant, are we now suggesting that postal voting should be disbanded?
As far as I have read in your link the EC are investigation and the councillors can make a complaint to the courts, not sure what happens after that though.
Well the Tories pushed through voter ID based on a minuscule number of fraud cases. So I hope they will now give the same attention to postal voting? Oh wait, voter ID disproportionately impacted lower income people who are more likely to not vote tory. Oh and postal voting also tends to be uses more by people who do not vote tory so I doubt anything will change."I was looking forward to hearing the answer to my question but obviously you've decided on the sarcasm rant this morning
Voter ID doesn't disproportionately impact anyone, we've already had this discussion in depth. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Threadromancy... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-65570851 So while apparent (non existent) voter fraud meant the Tories insisted on bringing in voter ID, in a Tory held council there was a “genuine mistake” where they lost and did not count the postal ballots (you know the ones that don’t need voter ID). Hmmmm? Are you somehow suggesting the Tories made these votes 'disappear' for long enough to discount them? If not, why does it matter that its a Tory held council? I'm not sure how it works exactly but surely the councillors aren't in control of storage until count day. Not suggesting anything but the number of “lost” postal votes was significant enough that if counted may have changed the outcome of the result. Just ironic considering the false hoo hah over needing voter ID! These “lost” postal votes cannot be counted now as they have declared. Got ya. Then see my second question
Are trying to say the Councillors themselves hid the postal votes? There will be a network of people and perhaps some know each other or perhaps some have a vested interest? However, I am sure it was just a genuine mistake. But it just goes to show that posts on here dismissing voter ID as a problem for people because they can postal vote has now been shown to be open to abuse (deliberate or otherwise). If I had been one of those who postal voted and wanted a different outcome, I would be pretty pissed off. Perhaps the problem isn’t ID?
That wasn't my second question but thanks for the in depth answer.
I don't disagree that the problem isn't ID, I actually don't think there was a problem in the first place, I just have no issue with ID. And of course there's going to be mishaps.
From what we know atm 1 council 'lost' some votes, although significant, are we now suggesting that postal voting should be disbanded?
As far as I have read in your link the EC are investigation and the councillors can make a complaint to the courts, not sure what happens after that though.
Well the Tories pushed through voter ID based on a minuscule number of fraud cases. So I hope they will now give the same attention to postal voting? Oh wait, voter ID disproportionately impacted lower income people who are more likely to not vote tory. Oh and postal voting also tends to be uses more by people who do not vote tory so I doubt anything will change."When people apply or are offered a job they need to prove they have a right to work in the UK, that needs ID, how are people getting on with that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Threadromancy... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-65570851 So while apparent (non existent) voter fraud meant the Tories insisted on bringing in voter ID, in a Tory held council there was a “genuine mistake” where they lost and did not count the postal ballots (you know the ones that don’t need voter ID). Hmmmm? Are you somehow suggesting the Tories made these votes 'disappear' for long enough to discount them? If not, why does it matter that its a Tory held council? I'm not sure how it works exactly but surely the councillors aren't in control of storage until count day. Not suggesting anything but the number of “lost” postal votes was significant enough that if counted may have changed the outcome of the result. Just ironic considering the false hoo hah over needing voter ID! These “lost” postal votes cannot be counted now as they have declared. Got ya. Then see my second question
Are trying to say the Councillors themselves hid the postal votes? There will be a network of people and perhaps some know each other or perhaps some have a vested interest? However, I am sure it was just a genuine mistake. But it just goes to show that posts on here dismissing voter ID as a problem for people because they can postal vote has now been shown to be open to abuse (deliberate or otherwise). If I had been one of those who postal voted and wanted a different outcome, I would be pretty pissed off. Perhaps the problem isn’t ID?
That wasn't my second question but thanks for the in depth answer.
I don't disagree that the problem isn't ID, I actually don't think there was a problem in the first place, I just have no issue with ID. And of course there's going to be mishaps.
From what we know atm 1 council 'lost' some votes, although significant, are we now suggesting that postal voting should be disbanded?
As far as I have read in your link the EC are investigation and the councillors can make a complaint to the courts, not sure what happens after that though.
Well the Tories pushed through voter ID based on a minuscule number of fraud cases. So I hope they will now give the same attention to postal voting? Oh wait, voter ID disproportionately impacted lower income people who are more likely to not vote tory. Oh and postal voting also tends to be uses more by people who do not vote tory so I doubt anything will change.
I was looking forward to hearing the answer to my question but obviously you've decided on the sarcasm rant this morning
Voter ID doesn't disproportionately impact anyone, we've already had this discussion in depth."Was there any investigation after the vote to see how people got on with the whole ID situation. Apart from a clip about an elderly person being turned away for not taking ID I did not hear anything | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Threadromancy... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-65570851 So while apparent (non existent) voter fraud meant the Tories insisted on bringing in voter ID, in a Tory held council there was a “genuine mistake” where they lost and did not count the postal ballots (you know the ones that don’t need voter ID). Hmmmm? Are you somehow suggesting the Tories made these votes 'disappear' for long enough to discount them? If not, why does it matter that its a Tory held council? I'm not sure how it works exactly but surely the councillors aren't in control of storage until count day. Not suggesting anything but the number of “lost” postal votes was significant enough that if counted may have changed the outcome of the result. Just ironic considering the false hoo hah over needing voter ID! These “lost” postal votes cannot be counted now as they have declared. Got ya. Then see my second question
Are trying to say the Councillors themselves hid the postal votes? There will be a network of people and perhaps some know each other or perhaps some have a vested interest? However, I am sure it was just a genuine mistake. But it just goes to show that posts on here dismissing voter ID as a problem for people because they can postal vote has now been shown to be open to abuse (deliberate or otherwise). If I had been one of those who postal voted and wanted a different outcome, I would be pretty pissed off. Perhaps the problem isn’t ID?
That wasn't my second question but thanks for the in depth answer.
I don't disagree that the problem isn't ID, I actually don't think there was a problem in the first place, I just have no issue with ID. And of course there's going to be mishaps.
From what we know atm 1 council 'lost' some votes, although significant, are we now suggesting that postal voting should be disbanded?
As far as I have read in your link the EC are investigation and the councillors can make a complaint to the courts, not sure what happens after that though.
Well the Tories pushed through voter ID based on a minuscule number of fraud cases. So I hope they will now give the same attention to postal voting? Oh wait, voter ID disproportionately impacted lower income people who are more likely to not vote tory. Oh and postal voting also tends to be uses more by people who do not vote tory so I doubt anything will change.
I was looking forward to hearing the answer to my question but obviously you've decided on the sarcasm rant this morning
Voter ID doesn't disproportionately impact anyone, we've already had this discussion in depth.
Was there any investigation after the vote to see how people got on with the whole ID situation. Apart from a clip about an elderly person being turned away for not taking ID I did not hear anything"No idea to be honest, I'd imagine it may be some weeks before any data is available. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Threadromancy... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-65570851 So while apparent (non existent) voter fraud meant the Tories insisted on bringing in voter ID, in a Tory held council there was a “genuine mistake” where they lost and did not count the postal ballots (you know the ones that don’t need voter ID). Hmmmm? Are you somehow suggesting the Tories made these votes 'disappear' for long enough to discount them? If not, why does it matter that its a Tory held council? I'm not sure how it works exactly but surely the councillors aren't in control of storage until count day. Not suggesting anything but the number of “lost” postal votes was significant enough that if counted may have changed the outcome of the result. Just ironic considering the false hoo hah over needing voter ID! These “lost” postal votes cannot be counted now as they have declared. Got ya. Then see my second question
Are trying to say the Councillors themselves hid the postal votes? There will be a network of people and perhaps some know each other or perhaps some have a vested interest? However, I am sure it was just a genuine mistake. But it just goes to show that posts on here dismissing voter ID as a problem for people because they can postal vote has now been shown to be open to abuse (deliberate or otherwise). If I had been one of those who postal voted and wanted a different outcome, I would be pretty pissed off. Perhaps the problem isn’t ID?
That wasn't my second question but thanks for the in depth answer.
I don't disagree that the problem isn't ID, I actually don't think there was a problem in the first place, I just have no issue with ID. And of course there's going to be mishaps.
From what we know atm 1 council 'lost' some votes, although significant, are we now suggesting that postal voting should be disbanded?
As far as I have read in your link the EC are investigation and the councillors can make a complaint to the courts, not sure what happens after that though.
Well the Tories pushed through voter ID based on a minuscule number of fraud cases. So I hope they will now give the same attention to postal voting? Oh wait, voter ID disproportionately impacted lower income people who are more likely to not vote tory. Oh and postal voting also tends to be uses more by people who do not vote tory so I doubt anything will change.
I was looking forward to hearing the answer to my question but obviously you've decided on the sarcasm rant this morning
Voter ID doesn't disproportionately impact anyone, we've already had this discussion in depth.
Was there any investigation after the vote to see how people got on with the whole ID situation. Apart from a clip about an elderly person being turned away for not taking ID I did not hear anything
No idea to be honest, I'd imagine it may be some weeks before any data is available. "is guardian... But they estimate 1.2pc with over half being non white. Bbc west had a lot lower number. Lookings like it's running at a few hundred per area. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Threadromancy... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-65570851 So while apparent (non existent) voter fraud meant the Tories insisted on bringing in voter ID, in a Tory held council there was a “genuine mistake” where they lost and did not count the postal ballots (you know the ones that don’t need voter ID). Hmmmm? Are you somehow suggesting the Tories made these votes 'disappear' for long enough to discount them? If not, why does it matter that its a Tory held council? I'm not sure how it works exactly but surely the councillors aren't in control of storage until count day. Not suggesting anything but the number of “lost” postal votes was significant enough that if counted may have changed the outcome of the result. Just ironic considering the false hoo hah over needing voter ID! These “lost” postal votes cannot be counted now as they have declared. Got ya. Then see my second question
Are trying to say the Councillors themselves hid the postal votes? There will be a network of people and perhaps some know each other or perhaps some have a vested interest? However, I am sure it was just a genuine mistake. But it just goes to show that posts on here dismissing voter ID as a problem for people because they can postal vote has now been shown to be open to abuse (deliberate or otherwise). If I had been one of those who postal voted and wanted a different outcome, I would be pretty pissed off. Perhaps the problem isn’t ID?
That wasn't my second question but thanks for the in depth answer.
I don't disagree that the problem isn't ID, I actually don't think there was a problem in the first place, I just have no issue with ID. And of course there's going to be mishaps.
From what we know atm 1 council 'lost' some votes, although significant, are we now suggesting that postal voting should be disbanded?
As far as I have read in your link the EC are investigation and the councillors can make a complaint to the courts, not sure what happens after that though.
Well the Tories pushed through voter ID based on a minuscule number of fraud cases. So I hope they will now give the same attention to postal voting? Oh wait, voter ID disproportionately impacted lower income people who are more likely to not vote tory. Oh and postal voting also tends to be uses more by people who do not vote tory so I doubt anything will change.
I was looking forward to hearing the answer to my question but obviously you've decided on the sarcasm rant this morning
Voter ID doesn't disproportionately impact anyone, we've already had this discussion in depth.
Was there any investigation after the vote to see how people got on with the whole ID situation. Apart from a clip about an elderly person being turned away for not taking ID I did not hear anything
No idea to be honest, I'd imagine it may be some weeks before any data is available. is guardian...
But they estimate 1.2pc with over half being non white.
Bbc west had a lot lower number.
Lookings like it's running at a few hundred per area. "Found this for Tyne & Wear https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0wg193pz63o | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To all those who insisted that this was necessary and not an attempt to manipulate voting… Mr Rees-Mogg said: "Parties that try and gerrymander end up finding their clever scheme comes back to bite them, as dare I say we found by insisting on voter ID for elections. "We found the people who didn't have ID were elderly and they by and large voted Conservative, so we made it hard for our own voters and we upset a system that worked perfectly well." https://news.sky.com/story/jacob-rees-mogg-suggests-requiring-photo-id-to-vote-was-attempt-to-gerrymander-which-came-back-to-bite-tories-12881602" I don't remember anyone round here saying it was necessary. What I do remember though was plenty of people saying this target the less well off, the young, immigrants etc etc. You know, those people who likely wouldn't vote tory. Turns out it was the opposite | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To all those who insisted that this was necessary and not an attempt to manipulate voting… Mr Rees-Mogg said: "Parties that try and gerrymander end up finding their clever scheme comes back to bite them, as dare I say we found by insisting on voter ID for elections. "We found the people who didn't have ID were elderly and they by and large voted Conservative, so we made it hard for our own voters and we upset a system that worked perfectly well." https://news.sky.com/story/jacob-rees-mogg-suggests-requiring-photo-id-to-vote-was-attempt-to-gerrymander-which-came-back-to-bite-tories-12881602 I don't remember anyone round here saying it was necessary. What I do remember though was plenty of people saying this target the less well off, the young, immigrants etc etc. You know, those people who likely wouldn't vote tory. Turns out it was the opposite "Nobody said that it was necessary? Really? Nobody on the thread thought that there was a problem that needed solving? Interesting perspective. The Law change accidentally affected the " wrong" people. That's rather the point of what Rees-Mogg said. They failed to achieve what they set out to and, in fact, had the opposite effect. You understood something different? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To all those who insisted that this was necessary and not an attempt to manipulate voting… Mr Rees-Mogg said: "Parties that try and gerrymander end up finding their clever scheme comes back to bite them, as dare I say we found by insisting on voter ID for elections. "We found the people who didn't have ID were elderly and they by and large voted Conservative, so we made it hard for our own voters and we upset a system that worked perfectly well." https://news.sky.com/story/jacob-rees-mogg-suggests-requiring-photo-id-to-vote-was-attempt-to-gerrymander-which-came-back-to-bite-tories-12881602 I don't remember anyone round here saying it was necessary. What I do remember though was plenty of people saying this target the less well off, the young, immigrants etc etc. You know, those people who likely wouldn't vote tory. Turns out it was the opposite
Nobody said that it was necessary? Really? Nobody on the thread thought that there was a problem that needed solving?
Interesting perspective.
The Law change accidentally affected the " wrong" people. That's rather the point of what Rees-Mogg said. They failed to achieve what they set out to and, in fact, had the opposite effect.
You understood something different?"I have an interesting perspective? Feel free to prove me wrong. Isn't it funny that Rees-Mogg has said this and you're all over it. David Davis said the opposite. Usually, round here, it's said that Rees-Mogg talks out of his arse, obviously, apart from when it suits. The point I made at the end was that this law change clearly didn't affect the very people that you all said it would. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Law change accidentally affected the " wrong" people. That's rather the point of what Rees-Mogg said. They failed to achieve what they set out to and, in fact, had the opposite effect." So you're unquestioningly accepting that what JRM says is definitely the truth? There's a turn up for the books. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Law change accidentally affected the " wrong" people. That's rather the point of what Rees-Mogg said. They failed to achieve what they set out to and, in fact, had the opposite effect. So you're unquestioningly accepting that what JRM says is definitely the truth? There's a turn up for the books." Well he was part of the cabinet at the time… someone just finally said the quiet bit out loud! Anything that helps with what is in effect voter suppression helps the tories…. Which is why the right wing press really don’t want eu citizens who live here to vote, and especially why tories don’t want 16/17 year olds to vote.. The greater the voting base, the closer you would get to a potential PR system (like in Scotland and wales) and the further away from power the tories will every get… | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Law change accidentally affected the " wrong" people. That's rather the point of what Rees-Mogg said. They failed to achieve what they set out to and, in fact, had the opposite effect. So you're unquestioningly accepting that what JRM says is definitely the truth? There's a turn up for the books. Well he was part of the cabinet at the time… someone just finally said the quiet bit out loud! Anything that helps with what is in effect voter suppression helps the tories…. Which is why the right wing press really don’t want eu citizens who live here to vote, and especially why tories don’t want 16/17 year olds to vote.. The greater the voting base, the closer you would get to a potential PR system (like in Scotland and wales) and the further away from power the tories will every get… " I’m afraid you are being played by Mogg.. you will see more of this too over the next few months as the conservative democrat group attempt to reign in Sunak and take back control of the party | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Law change accidentally affected the " wrong" people. That's rather the point of what Rees-Mogg said. They failed to achieve what they set out to and, in fact, had the opposite effect. So you're unquestioningly accepting that what JRM says is definitely the truth? There's a turn up for the books." I'm leaning towards accepting that id was bought in for gerrymandering given a) he's effectively accusing his own party, and b) he was (I believe) part of the government at the time so likely knew the reasoning. Whether it affected older voters more, or whether this is more Tory ginger pointing, pass. The admission is worrying tho imo. So much for democracy;) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Law change accidentally affected the " wrong" people. That's rather the point of what Rees-Mogg said. They failed to achieve what they set out to and, in fact, had the opposite effect. So you're unquestioningly accepting that what JRM says is definitely the truth? There's a turn up for the books. Well he was part of the cabinet at the time… someone just finally said the quiet bit out loud! Anything that helps with what is in effect voter suppression helps the tories…. Which is why the right wing press really don’t want eu citizens who live here to vote, and especially why tories don’t want 16/17 year olds to vote.. The greater the voting base, the closer you would get to a potential PR system (like in Scotland and wales) and the further away from power the tories will every get… I’m afraid you are being played by Mogg.. you will see more of this too over the next few months as the conservative democrat group attempt to reign in Sunak and take back control of the party" So, to be clear, Rees-Mogg is trying to discredit Sunak with the consequences of the Election bill introduced in 2021. When the Prime Minister was Boris Johnson, the Leader of the House of Commons was Jacob Rees-Mogg and the Government bringing the legislation was a Conservative one? How does this "take back control" of the party? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To all those who insisted that this was necessary and not an attempt to manipulate voting… Mr Rees-Mogg said: "Parties that try and gerrymander end up finding their clever scheme comes back to bite them, as dare I say we found by insisting on voter ID for elections. "We found the people who didn't have ID were elderly and they by and large voted Conservative, so we made it hard for our own voters and we upset a system that worked perfectly well." https://news.sky.com/story/jacob-rees-mogg-suggests-requiring-photo-id-to-vote-was-attempt-to-gerrymander-which-came-back-to-bite-tories-12881602 I don't remember anyone round here saying it was necessary. What I do remember though was plenty of people saying this target the less well off, the young, immigrants etc etc. You know, those people who likely wouldn't vote tory. Turns out it was the opposite
Nobody said that it was necessary? Really? Nobody on the thread thought that there was a problem that needed solving?
Interesting perspective.
The Law change accidentally affected the " wrong" people. That's rather the point of what Rees-Mogg said. They failed to achieve what they set out to and, in fact, had the opposite effect.
You understood something different?
I have an interesting perspective? Feel free to prove me wrong.
Isn't it funny that Rees-Mogg has said this and you're all over it. David Davis said the opposite.
Usually, round here, it's said that Rees-Mogg talks out of his arse, obviously, apart from when it suits.
The point I made at the end was that this law change clearly didn't affect the very people that you all said it would. "I don't need to prove what's written in the thread either about their being fraud or the innuendo of "not knowing" if there is widespread fraud. David Davis was not the Leader of the House of Commons when the act was introduced. He also said that the act was a threat to democracy. David Davis actually said exactly the same thing as Rees-Mogg just has. "Voter ID is like a US Republican policy of voter suppression, deliberately trying to undermine the voting capabilities of the disadvantaged and marginalised groups who would overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats." "The Joint Committee on Human Rights has published a report into the Elections Bill. The committee warned that the introduction of a photo ID requirement may have a discriminatory impact on certain groups who are less likely to hold any form of photo ID, including older people and people with disabilities. This could create barriers to exercising their right to vote." You are correct, I thought that the Government would have framed the legislation such that they would achieve their goal. However, they were too incompetent too. Rees-Mogg has said that they failed to do what they had intended too. Disenfranchise those who would be most likely to vote against the Tory party. What point are you making? You want to "prove" that I was wrong? Is that your only obsession? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Law change accidentally affected the " wrong" people. That's rather the point of what Rees-Mogg said. They failed to achieve what they set out to and, in fact, had the opposite effect. So you're unquestioningly accepting that what JRM says is definitely the truth? There's a turn up for the books. Well he was part of the cabinet at the time… someone just finally said the quiet bit out loud! Anything that helps with what is in effect voter suppression helps the tories…. Which is why the right wing press really don’t want eu citizens who live here to vote, and especially why tories don’t want 16/17 year olds to vote.. The greater the voting base, the closer you would get to a potential PR system (like in Scotland and wales) and the further away from power the tories will every get… I’m afraid you are being played by Mogg.. you will see more of this too over the next few months as the conservative democrat group attempt to reign in Sunak and take back control of the party So, to be clear, Rees-Mogg is trying to discredit Sunak with the consequences of the Election bill introduced in 2021. When the Prime Minister was Boris Johnson, the Leader of the House of Commons was Jacob Rees-Mogg and the Government bringing the legislation was a Conservative one? How does this "take back control" of the party?" Let's see how things unfold over the next 6 months and revisit this | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The Law change accidentally affected the " wrong" people. That's rather the point of what Rees-Mogg said. They failed to achieve what they set out to and, in fact, had the opposite effect. So you're unquestioningly accepting that what JRM says is definitely the truth? There's a turn up for the books. Well he was part of the cabinet at the time… someone just finally said the quiet bit out loud! Anything that helps with what is in effect voter suppression helps the tories…. Which is why the right wing press really don’t want eu citizens who live here to vote, and especially why tories don’t want 16/17 year olds to vote.. The greater the voting base, the closer you would get to a potential PR system (like in Scotland and wales) and the further away from power the tories will every get… I’m afraid you are being played by Mogg.. you will see more of this too over the next few months as the conservative democrat group attempt to reign in Sunak and take back control of the party So, to be clear, Rees-Mogg is trying to discredit Sunak with the consequences of the Election bill introduced in 2021. When the Prime Minister was Boris Johnson, the Leader of the House of Commons was Jacob Rees-Mogg and the Government bringing the legislation was a Conservative one? How does this "take back control" of the party? Let's see how things unfold over the next 6 months and revisit this" I have no doubt that Rees-Mogg wants to discredit Sunak. Please explain how this helps, when it was a Johnson policy brought in by Rees-Mogg on behalf of the Conservative party. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To all those who insisted that this was necessary and not an attempt to manipulate voting… Mr Rees-Mogg said: "Parties that try and gerrymander end up finding their clever scheme comes back to bite them, as dare I say we found by insisting on voter ID for elections. "We found the people who didn't have ID were elderly and they by and large voted Conservative, so we made it hard for our own voters and we upset a system that worked perfectly well." https://news.sky.com/story/jacob-rees-mogg-suggests-requiring-photo-id-to-vote-was-attempt-to-gerrymander-which-came-back-to-bite-tories-12881602 I don't remember anyone round here saying it was necessary. What I do remember though was plenty of people saying this target the less well off, the young, immigrants etc etc. You know, those people who likely wouldn't vote tory. Turns out it was the opposite
Nobody said that it was necessary? Really? Nobody on the thread thought that there was a problem that needed solving?
Interesting perspective.
The Law change accidentally affected the " wrong" people. That's rather the point of what Rees-Mogg said. They failed to achieve what they set out to and, in fact, had the opposite effect.
You understood something different?
I have an interesting perspective? Feel free to prove me wrong.
Isn't it funny that Rees-Mogg has said this and you're all over it. David Davis said the opposite.
Usually, round here, it's said that Rees-Mogg talks out of his arse, obviously, apart from when it suits.
The point I made at the end was that this law change clearly didn't affect the very people that you all said it would.
I don't need to prove what's written in the thread either about their being fraud or the innuendo of "not knowing" if there is widespread fraud.
David Davis was not the Leader of the House of Commons when the act was introduced. He also said that the act was a threat to democracy.
David Davis actually said exactly the same thing as Rees-Mogg just has.
"Voter ID is like a US Republican policy of voter suppression, deliberately trying to undermine the voting capabilities of the disadvantaged and marginalised groups who would overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats."
"The Joint Committee on Human Rights has published a report into the Elections Bill. The committee warned that the introduction of a photo ID requirement may have a discriminatory impact on certain groups who are less likely to hold any form of photo ID, including older people and people with disabilities. This could create barriers to exercising their right to vote."
You are correct, I thought that the Government would have framed the legislation such that they would achieve their goal. However, they were too incompetent too.
Rees-Mogg has said that they failed to do what they had intended too. Disenfranchise those who would be most likely to vote against the Tory party.
What point are you making? You want to "prove" that I was wrong? Is that your only obsession? "The 'innuendo' of not knowing is just a fact, there was no measurable way to know whether people were who the said they were. From your link: 'David Davis, the veteran Conservative MP, told Sky News that he did not think the voter ID reforms were an attempt to gerrymander. "But if it were, it could turn out to be a spectacular miscalculation", he said, as "the Conservative Party gets the predominant share of the elderly vote".' What does that look like David Davis is saying? Maybe I just can't read. Why do you continually speak of my 'obsession' with you? Why don't we try to discuss the actual article rather than those cheap digs? Tell me why you suddenly believe Rees-Mogg and not David Davis. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To all those who insisted that this was necessary and not an attempt to manipulate voting… Mr Rees-Mogg said: "Parties that try and gerrymander end up finding their clever scheme comes back to bite them, as dare I say we found by insisting on voter ID for elections. "We found the people who didn't have ID were elderly and they by and large voted Conservative, so we made it hard for our own voters and we upset a system that worked perfectly well." https://news.sky.com/story/jacob-rees-mogg-suggests-requiring-photo-id-to-vote-was-attempt-to-gerrymander-which-came-back-to-bite-tories-12881602 I don't remember anyone round here saying it was necessary. What I do remember though was plenty of people saying this target the less well off, the young, immigrants etc etc. You know, those people who likely wouldn't vote tory. Turns out it was the opposite
Nobody said that it was necessary? Really? Nobody on the thread thought that there was a problem that needed solving?
Interesting perspective.
The Law change accidentally affected the " wrong" people. That's rather the point of what Rees-Mogg said. They failed to achieve what they set out to and, in fact, had the opposite effect.
You understood something different?
I have an interesting perspective? Feel free to prove me wrong.
Isn't it funny that Rees-Mogg has said this and you're all over it. David Davis said the opposite.
Usually, round here, it's said that Rees-Mogg talks out of his arse, obviously, apart from when it suits.
The point I made at the end was that this law change clearly didn't affect the very people that you all said it would.
I don't need to prove what's written in the thread either about their being fraud or the innuendo of "not knowing" if there is widespread fraud.
David Davis was not the Leader of the House of Commons when the act was introduced. He also said that the act was a threat to democracy.
David Davis actually said exactly the same thing as Rees-Mogg just has.
"Voter ID is like a US Republican policy of voter suppression, deliberately trying to undermine the voting capabilities of the disadvantaged and marginalised groups who would overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats."
"The Joint Committee on Human Rights has published a report into the Elections Bill. The committee warned that the introduction of a photo ID requirement may have a discriminatory impact on certain groups who are less likely to hold any form of photo ID, including older people and people with disabilities. This could create barriers to exercising their right to vote."
You are correct, I thought that the Government would have framed the legislation such that they would achieve their goal. However, they were too incompetent too.
Rees-Mogg has said that they failed to do what they had intended too. Disenfranchise those who would be most likely to vote against the Tory party.
What point are you making? You want to "prove" that I was wrong? Is that your only obsession?
The 'innuendo' of not knowing is just a fact, there was no measurable way to know whether people were who the said they were.
From your link:
'David Davis, the veteran Conservative MP, told Sky News that he did not think the voter ID reforms were an attempt to gerrymander.
"But if it were, it could turn out to be a spectacular miscalculation", he said, as "the Conservative Party gets the predominant share of the elderly vote".'
What does that look like David Davis is saying? Maybe I just can't read.
Why do you continually speak of my 'obsession' with you? Why don't we try to discuss the actual article rather than those cheap digs?
Tell me why you suddenly believe Rees-Mogg and not David Davis."The Johnson backed group conservative democrats don't give a damn about who brought what in, their aim is take back power after ERG is no more. They are smart enough to know that Sunak cannot afford further issues, Sunak knows he can't go forward with this group. The aim of this group is to remove Sunak and take back the leadership, or to hold so much influence Sunak needs them to turn a light on. As I mentioned, let's revisit this, but I have a feeling things will appear to destabilise the Tory party more frequently going forward. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To all those who insisted that this was necessary and not an attempt to manipulate voting… Mr Rees-Mogg said: "Parties that try and gerrymander end up finding their clever scheme comes back to bite them, as dare I say we found by insisting on voter ID for elections. "We found the people who didn't have ID were elderly and they by and large voted Conservative, so we made it hard for our own voters and we upset a system that worked perfectly well." https://news.sky.com/story/jacob-rees-mogg-suggests-requiring-photo-id-to-vote-was-attempt-to-gerrymander-which-came-back-to-bite-tories-12881602 I don't remember anyone round here saying it was necessary. What I do remember though was plenty of people saying this target the less well off, the young, immigrants etc etc. You know, those people who likely wouldn't vote tory. Turns out it was the opposite
Nobody said that it was necessary? Really? Nobody on the thread thought that there was a problem that needed solving?
Interesting perspective.
The Law change accidentally affected the " wrong" people. That's rather the point of what Rees-Mogg said. They failed to achieve what they set out to and, in fact, had the opposite effect.
You understood something different?
I have an interesting perspective? Feel free to prove me wrong.
Isn't it funny that Rees-Mogg has said this and you're all over it. David Davis said the opposite.
Usually, round here, it's said that Rees-Mogg talks out of his arse, obviously, apart from when it suits.
The point I made at the end was that this law change clearly didn't affect the very people that you all said it would.
I don't need to prove what's written in the thread either about their being fraud or the innuendo of "not knowing" if there is widespread fraud.
David Davis was not the Leader of the House of Commons when the act was introduced. He also said that the act was a threat to democracy.
David Davis actually said exactly the same thing as Rees-Mogg just has.
"Voter ID is like a US Republican policy of voter suppression, deliberately trying to undermine the voting capabilities of the disadvantaged and marginalised groups who would overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats."
"The Joint Committee on Human Rights has published a report into the Elections Bill. The committee warned that the introduction of a photo ID requirement may have a discriminatory impact on certain groups who are less likely to hold any form of photo ID, including older people and people with disabilities. This could create barriers to exercising their right to vote."
You are correct, I thought that the Government would have framed the legislation such that they would achieve their goal. However, they were too incompetent too.
Rees-Mogg has said that they failed to do what they had intended too. Disenfranchise those who would be most likely to vote against the Tory party.
What point are you making? You want to "prove" that I was wrong? Is that your only obsession?
The 'innuendo' of not knowing is just a fact, there was no measurable way to know whether people were who the said they were.
From your link:
'David Davis, the veteran Conservative MP, told Sky News that he did not think the voter ID reforms were an attempt to gerrymander.
"But if it were, it could turn out to be a spectacular miscalculation", he said, as "the Conservative Party gets the predominant share of the elderly vote".'
What does that look like David Davis is saying? Maybe I just can't read.
Why do you continually speak of my 'obsession' with you? Why don't we try to discuss the actual article rather than those cheap digs?
Tell me why you suddenly believe Rees-Mogg and not David Davis."Not knowing is not "a fact". There is data on investigations, prosecutions and convictions for illegal voting. That is extremely low. There remains no problem to fix. You quoted what Davis said in the Sky article. I also provided this direct quote from Davis: "Voter ID is like a US Republican policy of voter suppression, deliberately trying to undermine the voting capabilities of the disadvantaged and marginalised groups who would overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats." You read and understood that too, right? So Davis agreed with Rees-Mogg before the act passed. That's what these words mean: "David Davis actually SAID exactly the same thing as Rees-Mogg just has." Why was the Election Act introduced then? Using up months of Parliamentary time. To fix a problem for which there was "a fact" of there being no evidence to require a change, or an attempt to rig elections in the Conservative party's favour? Based on the evidence of the last several years the latter is far more believable. Rees-Mogg was the person responsible for taking the legislation through Parliament as Leader of the House of Commons. As a particularly disingenuous individual I will take the view that he said whatever was necessary to get the legislation passed. Now that it has proven useless and he is no longer in Government, he is vocalising his real opinion to show off in front of a friendly audience. Why do you think he said what he did? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To all those who insisted that this was necessary and not an attempt to manipulate voting… Mr Rees-Mogg said: "Parties that try and gerrymander end up finding their clever scheme comes back to bite them, as dare I say we found by insisting on voter ID for elections. "We found the people who didn't have ID were elderly and they by and large voted Conservative, so we made it hard for our own voters and we upset a system that worked perfectly well." https://news.sky.com/story/jacob-rees-mogg-suggests-requiring-photo-id-to-vote-was-attempt-to-gerrymander-which-came-back-to-bite-tories-12881602 I don't remember anyone round here saying it was necessary. What I do remember though was plenty of people saying this target the less well off, the young, immigrants etc etc. You know, those people who likely wouldn't vote tory. Turns out it was the opposite
Nobody said that it was necessary? Really? Nobody on the thread thought that there was a problem that needed solving?
Interesting perspective.
The Law change accidentally affected the " wrong" people. That's rather the point of what Rees-Mogg said. They failed to achieve what they set out to and, in fact, had the opposite effect.
You understood something different?
I have an interesting perspective? Feel free to prove me wrong.
Isn't it funny that Rees-Mogg has said this and you're all over it. David Davis said the opposite.
Usually, round here, it's said that Rees-Mogg talks out of his arse, obviously, apart from when it suits.
The point I made at the end was that this law change clearly didn't affect the very people that you all said it would.
I don't need to prove what's written in the thread either about their being fraud or the innuendo of "not knowing" if there is widespread fraud.
David Davis was not the Leader of the House of Commons when the act was introduced. He also said that the act was a threat to democracy.
David Davis actually said exactly the same thing as Rees-Mogg just has.
"Voter ID is like a US Republican policy of voter suppression, deliberately trying to undermine the voting capabilities of the disadvantaged and marginalised groups who would overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats."
"The Joint Committee on Human Rights has published a report into the Elections Bill. The committee warned that the introduction of a photo ID requirement may have a discriminatory impact on certain groups who are less likely to hold any form of photo ID, including older people and people with disabilities. This could create barriers to exercising their right to vote."
You are correct, I thought that the Government would have framed the legislation such that they would achieve their goal. However, they were too incompetent too.
Rees-Mogg has said that they failed to do what they had intended too. Disenfranchise those who would be most likely to vote against the Tory party.
What point are you making? You want to "prove" that I was wrong? Is that your only obsession?
The 'innuendo' of not knowing is just a fact, there was no measurable way to know whether people were who the said they were.
From your link:
'David Davis, the veteran Conservative MP, told Sky News that he did not think the voter ID reforms were an attempt to gerrymander.
"But if it were, it could turn out to be a spectacular miscalculation", he said, as "the Conservative Party gets the predominant share of the elderly vote".'
What does that look like David Davis is saying? Maybe I just can't read.
Why do you continually speak of my 'obsession' with you? Why don't we try to discuss the actual article rather than those cheap digs?
Tell me why you suddenly believe Rees-Mogg and not David Davis.
The Johnson backed group conservative democrats don't give a damn about who brought what in, their aim is take back power after ERG is no more. They are smart enough to know that Sunak cannot afford further issues, Sunak knows he can't go forward with this group. The aim of this group is to remove Sunak and take back the leadership, or to hold so much influence Sunak needs them to turn a light on. As I mentioned, let's revisit this, but I have a feeling things will appear to destabilise the Tory party more frequently going forward."I continue to agree that there is an intention to destabilise the Rishi Sunak. How does criticism of Johnson's legislation, pushed through by Rees-Mogg himself and backed by the majority of Conservative party MPs help achieve this? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To all those who insisted that this was necessary and not an attempt to manipulate voting… Mr Rees-Mogg said: "Parties that try and gerrymander end up finding their clever scheme comes back to bite them, as dare I say we found by insisting on voter ID for elections. "We found the people who didn't have ID were elderly and they by and large voted Conservative, so we made it hard for our own voters and we upset a system that worked perfectly well." https://news.sky.com/story/jacob-rees-mogg-suggests-requiring-photo-id-to-vote-was-attempt-to-gerrymander-which-came-back-to-bite-tories-12881602 I don't remember anyone round here saying it was necessary. What I do remember though was plenty of people saying this target the less well off, the young, immigrants etc etc. You know, those people who likely wouldn't vote tory. Turns out it was the opposite
Nobody said that it was necessary? Really? Nobody on the thread thought that there was a problem that needed solving?
Interesting perspective.
The Law change accidentally affected the " wrong" people. That's rather the point of what Rees-Mogg said. They failed to achieve what they set out to and, in fact, had the opposite effect.
You understood something different?
I have an interesting perspective? Feel free to prove me wrong.
Isn't it funny that Rees-Mogg has said this and you're all over it. David Davis said the opposite.
Usually, round here, it's said that Rees-Mogg talks out of his arse, obviously, apart from when it suits.
The point I made at the end was that this law change clearly didn't affect the very people that you all said it would.
I don't need to prove what's written in the thread either about their being fraud or the innuendo of "not knowing" if there is widespread fraud.
David Davis was not the Leader of the House of Commons when the act was introduced. He also said that the act was a threat to democracy.
David Davis actually said exactly the same thing as Rees-Mogg just has.
"Voter ID is like a US Republican policy of voter suppression, deliberately trying to undermine the voting capabilities of the disadvantaged and marginalised groups who would overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats."
"The Joint Committee on Human Rights has published a report into the Elections Bill. The committee warned that the introduction of a photo ID requirement may have a discriminatory impact on certain groups who are less likely to hold any form of photo ID, including older people and people with disabilities. This could create barriers to exercising their right to vote."
You are correct, I thought that the Government would have framed the legislation such that they would achieve their goal. However, they were too incompetent too.
Rees-Mogg has said that they failed to do what they had intended too. Disenfranchise those who would be most likely to vote against the Tory party.
What point are you making? You want to "prove" that I was wrong? Is that your only obsession?
The 'innuendo' of not knowing is just a fact, there was no measurable way to know whether people were who the said they were.
From your link:
'David Davis, the veteran Conservative MP, told Sky News that he did not think the voter ID reforms were an attempt to gerrymander.
"But if it were, it could turn out to be a spectacular miscalculation", he said, as "the Conservative Party gets the predominant share of the elderly vote".'
What does that look like David Davis is saying? Maybe I just can't read.
Why do you continually speak of my 'obsession' with you? Why don't we try to discuss the actual article rather than those cheap digs?
Tell me why you suddenly believe Rees-Mogg and not David Davis.
The Johnson backed group conservative democrats don't give a damn about who brought what in, their aim is take back power after ERG is no more. They are smart enough to know that Sunak cannot afford further issues, Sunak knows he can't go forward with this group. The aim of this group is to remove Sunak and take back the leadership, or to hold so much influence Sunak needs them to turn a light on. As I mentioned, let's revisit this, but I have a feeling things will appear to destabilise the Tory party more frequently going forward.
I continue to agree that there is an intention to destabilise the Rishi Sunak.
How does criticism of Johnson's legislation, pushed through by Rees-Mogg himself and backed by the majority of Conservative party MPs help achieve this?"Simple divide and conquer techniques. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To all those who insisted that this was necessary and not an attempt to manipulate voting… Mr Rees-Mogg said: "Parties that try and gerrymander end up finding their clever scheme comes back to bite them, as dare I say we found by insisting on voter ID for elections. "We found the people who didn't have ID were elderly and they by and large voted Conservative, so we made it hard for our own voters and we upset a system that worked perfectly well." https://news.sky.com/story/jacob-rees-mogg-suggests-requiring-photo-id-to-vote-was-attempt-to-gerrymander-which-came-back-to-bite-tories-12881602 I don't remember anyone round here saying it was necessary. What I do remember though was plenty of people saying this target the less well off, the young, immigrants etc etc. You know, those people who likely wouldn't vote tory. Turns out it was the opposite
Nobody said that it was necessary? Really? Nobody on the thread thought that there was a problem that needed solving?
Interesting perspective.
The Law change accidentally affected the " wrong" people. That's rather the point of what Rees-Mogg said. They failed to achieve what they set out to and, in fact, had the opposite effect.
You understood something different?
I have an interesting perspective? Feel free to prove me wrong.
Isn't it funny that Rees-Mogg has said this and you're all over it. David Davis said the opposite.
Usually, round here, it's said that Rees-Mogg talks out of his arse, obviously, apart from when it suits.
The point I made at the end was that this law change clearly didn't affect the very people that you all said it would.
I don't need to prove what's written in the thread either about their being fraud or the innuendo of "not knowing" if there is widespread fraud.
David Davis was not the Leader of the House of Commons when the act was introduced. He also said that the act was a threat to democracy.
David Davis actually said exactly the same thing as Rees-Mogg just has.
"Voter ID is like a US Republican policy of voter suppression, deliberately trying to undermine the voting capabilities of the disadvantaged and marginalised groups who would overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats."
"The Joint Committee on Human Rights has published a report into the Elections Bill. The committee warned that the introduction of a photo ID requirement may have a discriminatory impact on certain groups who are less likely to hold any form of photo ID, including older people and people with disabilities. This could create barriers to exercising their right to vote."
You are correct, I thought that the Government would have framed the legislation such that they would achieve their goal. However, they were too incompetent too.
Rees-Mogg has said that they failed to do what they had intended too. Disenfranchise those who would be most likely to vote against the Tory party.
What point are you making? You want to "prove" that I was wrong? Is that your only obsession?
The 'innuendo' of not knowing is just a fact, there was no measurable way to know whether people were who the said they were.
From your link:
'David Davis, the veteran Conservative MP, told Sky News that he did not think the voter ID reforms were an attempt to gerrymander.
"But if it were, it could turn out to be a spectacular miscalculation", he said, as "the Conservative Party gets the predominant share of the elderly vote".'
What does that look like David Davis is saying? Maybe I just can't read.
Why do you continually speak of my 'obsession' with you? Why don't we try to discuss the actual article rather than those cheap digs?
Tell me why you suddenly believe Rees-Mogg and not David Davis.
Not knowing is not "a fact". There is data on investigations, prosecutions and convictions for illegal voting. That is extremely low. There remains no problem to fix.
You quoted what Davis said in the Sky article. I also provided this direct quote from Davis:
"Voter ID is like a US Republican policy of voter suppression, deliberately trying to undermine the voting capabilities of the disadvantaged and marginalised groups who would overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats."
You read and understood that too, right?
So Davis agreed with Rees-Mogg before the act passed.
That's what these words mean: "David Davis actually SAID exactly the same thing as Rees-Mogg just has."
Why was the Election Act introduced then? Using up months of Parliamentary time. To fix a problem for which there was "a fact" of there being no evidence to require a change, or an attempt to rig elections in the Conservative party's favour?
Based on the evidence of the last several years the latter is far more believable.
Rees-Mogg was the person responsible for taking the legislation through Parliament as Leader of the House of Commons. As a particularly disingenuous individual I will take the view that he said whatever was necessary to get the legislation passed. Now that it has proven useless and he is no longer in Government, he is vocalising his real opinion to show off in front of a friendly audience.
Why do you think he said what he did?"God you're hard work aren't you. David Davis didn't 'actually' say, he 'also' said, those words matter. Why would you believe one statement but not another? I genuinely couldn't care less why he said what he said, maybe he is telling the truth. What I am interested in though, is why, you in particular, are now holding up Rees-Mogg as a pinnacle of truth? You've always ridiculed everything that comes from the man's mouth. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To all those who insisted that this was necessary and not an attempt to manipulate voting… Mr Rees-Mogg said: "Parties that try and gerrymander end up finding their clever scheme comes back to bite them, as dare I say we found by insisting on voter ID for elections. "We found the people who didn't have ID were elderly and they by and large voted Conservative, so we made it hard for our own voters and we upset a system that worked perfectly well." https://news.sky.com/story/jacob-rees-mogg-suggests-requiring-photo-id-to-vote-was-attempt-to-gerrymander-which-came-back-to-bite-tories-12881602 I don't remember anyone round here saying it was necessary. What I do remember though was plenty of people saying this target the less well off, the young, immigrants etc etc. You know, those people who likely wouldn't vote tory. Turns out it was the opposite
Nobody said that it was necessary? Really? Nobody on the thread thought that there was a problem that needed solving?
Interesting perspective.
The Law change accidentally affected the " wrong" people. That's rather the point of what Rees-Mogg said. They failed to achieve what they set out to and, in fact, had the opposite effect.
You understood something different?
I have an interesting perspective? Feel free to prove me wrong.
Isn't it funny that Rees-Mogg has said this and you're all over it. David Davis said the opposite.
Usually, round here, it's said that Rees-Mogg talks out of his arse, obviously, apart from when it suits.
The point I made at the end was that this law change clearly didn't affect the very people that you all said it would.
I don't need to prove what's written in the thread either about their being fraud or the innuendo of "not knowing" if there is widespread fraud.
David Davis was not the Leader of the House of Commons when the act was introduced. He also said that the act was a threat to democracy.
David Davis actually said exactly the same thing as Rees-Mogg just has.
"Voter ID is like a US Republican policy of voter suppression, deliberately trying to undermine the voting capabilities of the disadvantaged and marginalised groups who would overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats."
"The Joint Committee on Human Rights has published a report into the Elections Bill. The committee warned that the introduction of a photo ID requirement may have a discriminatory impact on certain groups who are less likely to hold any form of photo ID, including older people and people with disabilities. This could create barriers to exercising their right to vote."
You are correct, I thought that the Government would have framed the legislation such that they would achieve their goal. However, they were too incompetent too.
Rees-Mogg has said that they failed to do what they had intended too. Disenfranchise those who would be most likely to vote against the Tory party.
What point are you making? You want to "prove" that I was wrong? Is that your only obsession?
The 'innuendo' of not knowing is just a fact, there was no measurable way to know whether people were who the said they were.
From your link:
'David Davis, the veteran Conservative MP, told Sky News that he did not think the voter ID reforms were an attempt to gerrymander.
"But if it were, it could turn out to be a spectacular miscalculation", he said, as "the Conservative Party gets the predominant share of the elderly vote".'
What does that look like David Davis is saying? Maybe I just can't read.
Why do you continually speak of my 'obsession' with you? Why don't we try to discuss the actual article rather than those cheap digs?
Tell me why you suddenly believe Rees-Mogg and not David Davis.
The Johnson backed group conservative democrats don't give a damn about who brought what in, their aim is take back power after ERG is no more. They are smart enough to know that Sunak cannot afford further issues, Sunak knows he can't go forward with this group. The aim of this group is to remove Sunak and take back the leadership, or to hold so much influence Sunak needs them to turn a light on. As I mentioned, let's revisit this, but I have a feeling things will appear to destabilise the Tory party more frequently going forward.
I continue to agree that there is an intention to destabilise the Rishi Sunak.
How does criticism of Johnson's legislation, pushed through by Rees-Mogg himself and backed by the majority of Conservative party MPs help achieve this?
Simple divide and conquer techniques. "He's criticised his side to achieve this? I think this is a Freudian slip wrapped up in the excitement of playing to his own political audience. Not part of the intentional political plan to maintain the power of the small, bit vocal, right of the pari. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To all those who insisted that this was necessary and not an attempt to manipulate voting… Mr Rees-Mogg said: "Parties that try and gerrymander end up finding their clever scheme comes back to bite them, as dare I say we found by insisting on voter ID for elections. "We found the people who didn't have ID were elderly and they by and large voted Conservative, so we made it hard for our own voters and we upset a system that worked perfectly well." https://news.sky.com/story/jacob-rees-mogg-suggests-requiring-photo-id-to-vote-was-attempt-to-gerrymander-which-came-back-to-bite-tories-12881602 I don't remember anyone round here saying it was necessary. What I do remember though was plenty of people saying this target the less well off, the young, immigrants etc etc. You know, those people who likely wouldn't vote tory. Turns out it was the opposite
Nobody said that it was necessary? Really? Nobody on the thread thought that there was a problem that needed solving?
Interesting perspective.
The Law change accidentally affected the " wrong" people. That's rather the point of what Rees-Mogg said. They failed to achieve what they set out to and, in fact, had the opposite effect.
You understood something different?
I have an interesting perspective? Feel free to prove me wrong.
Isn't it funny that Rees-Mogg has said this and you're all over it. David Davis said the opposite.
Usually, round here, it's said that Rees-Mogg talks out of his arse, obviously, apart from when it suits.
The point I made at the end was that this law change clearly didn't affect the very people that you all said it would.
I don't need to prove what's written in the thread either about their being fraud or the innuendo of "not knowing" if there is widespread fraud.
David Davis was not the Leader of the House of Commons when the act was introduced. He also said that the act was a threat to democracy.
David Davis actually said exactly the same thing as Rees-Mogg just has.
"Voter ID is like a US Republican policy of voter suppression, deliberately trying to undermine the voting capabilities of the disadvantaged and marginalised groups who would overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats."
"The Joint Committee on Human Rights has published a report into the Elections Bill. The committee warned that the introduction of a photo ID requirement may have a discriminatory impact on certain groups who are less likely to hold any form of photo ID, including older people and people with disabilities. This could create barriers to exercising their right to vote."
You are correct, I thought that the Government would have framed the legislation such that they would achieve their goal. However, they were too incompetent too.
Rees-Mogg has said that they failed to do what they had intended too. Disenfranchise those who would be most likely to vote against the Tory party.
What point are you making? You want to "prove" that I was wrong? Is that your only obsession?
The 'innuendo' of not knowing is just a fact, there was no measurable way to know whether people were who the said they were.
From your link:
'David Davis, the veteran Conservative MP, told Sky News that he did not think the voter ID reforms were an attempt to gerrymander.
"But if it were, it could turn out to be a spectacular miscalculation", he said, as "the Conservative Party gets the predominant share of the elderly vote".'
What does that look like David Davis is saying? Maybe I just can't read.
Why do you continually speak of my 'obsession' with you? Why don't we try to discuss the actual article rather than those cheap digs?
Tell me why you suddenly believe Rees-Mogg and not David Davis.
Not knowing is not "a fact". There is data on investigations, prosecutions and convictions for illegal voting. That is extremely low. There remains no problem to fix.
You quoted what Davis said in the Sky article. I also provided this direct quote from Davis:
"Voter ID is like a US Republican policy of voter suppression, deliberately trying to undermine the voting capabilities of the disadvantaged and marginalised groups who would overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats."
You read and understood that too, right?
So Davis agreed with Rees-Mogg before the act passed.
That's what these words mean: "David Davis actually SAID exactly the same thing as Rees-Mogg just has."
Why was the Election Act introduced then? Using up months of Parliamentary time. To fix a problem for which there was "a fact" of there being no evidence to require a change, or an attempt to rig elections in the Conservative party's favour?
Based on the evidence of the last several years the latter is far more believable.
Rees-Mogg was the person responsible for taking the legislation through Parliament as Leader of the House of Commons. As a particularly disingenuous individual I will take the view that he said whatever was necessary to get the legislation passed. Now that it has proven useless and he is no longer in Government, he is vocalising his real opinion to show off in front of a friendly audience.
Why do you think he said what he did?
God you're hard work aren't you.
David Davis didn't 'actually' say, he 'also' said, those words matter. Why would you believe one statement but not another?
I genuinely couldn't care less why he said what he said, maybe he is telling the truth.
What I am interested in though, is why, you in particular, are now holding up Rees-Mogg as a pinnacle of truth? You've always ridiculed everything that comes from the man's mouth.
"So I have stated nothing less true than you have. You are equally "hard work". I have told you why Rees-Mogg's words now seem to align more with his true beliefs. He is now out of Government and showing off to a audience of like minded supporters. Davis may have thought that it was bad legislation in his original comment and used the example to warn of what it would end up doing. He may well be hoping that it is not the cynical attempt at voter manipulation that Rees-Mogg has now confirmed that it was. Same questions to you about Davis and Rees-Mogg now that I've answered you twice. The only point that I was making is that Rees-Mogg now states that this was a failed attempt to suppress the votes of those who were not Conservative supporters. This was what many other posters also says. Those making the case that there was a legitimate reason for the voter ID rules (or that no evidence was adequate) should consider explaining their positions as a consequence of this new information or why it makes no difference. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To all those who insisted that this was necessary and not an attempt to manipulate voting… Mr Rees-Mogg said: "Parties that try and gerrymander end up finding their clever scheme comes back to bite them, as dare I say we found by insisting on voter ID for elections. "We found the people who didn't have ID were elderly and they by and large voted Conservative, so we made it hard for our own voters and we upset a system that worked perfectly well." https://news.sky.com/story/jacob-rees-mogg-suggests-requiring-photo-id-to-vote-was-attempt-to-gerrymander-which-came-back-to-bite-tories-12881602 I don't remember anyone round here saying it was necessary. What I do remember though was plenty of people saying this target the less well off, the young, immigrants etc etc. You know, those people who likely wouldn't vote tory. Turns out it was the opposite
Nobody said that it was necessary? Really? Nobody on the thread thought that there was a problem that needed solving?
Interesting perspective.
The Law change accidentally affected the " wrong" people. That's rather the point of what Rees-Mogg said. They failed to achieve what they set out to and, in fact, had the opposite effect.
You understood something different?
I have an interesting perspective? Feel free to prove me wrong.
Isn't it funny that Rees-Mogg has said this and you're all over it. David Davis said the opposite.
Usually, round here, it's said that Rees-Mogg talks out of his arse, obviously, apart from when it suits.
The point I made at the end was that this law change clearly didn't affect the very people that you all said it would.
I don't need to prove what's written in the thread either about their being fraud or the innuendo of "not knowing" if there is widespread fraud.
David Davis was not the Leader of the House of Commons when the act was introduced. He also said that the act was a threat to democracy.
David Davis actually said exactly the same thing as Rees-Mogg just has.
"Voter ID is like a US Republican policy of voter suppression, deliberately trying to undermine the voting capabilities of the disadvantaged and marginalised groups who would overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats."
"The Joint Committee on Human Rights has published a report into the Elections Bill. The committee warned that the introduction of a photo ID requirement may have a discriminatory impact on certain groups who are less likely to hold any form of photo ID, including older people and people with disabilities. This could create barriers to exercising their right to vote."
You are correct, I thought that the Government would have framed the legislation such that they would achieve their goal. However, they were too incompetent too.
Rees-Mogg has said that they failed to do what they had intended too. Disenfranchise those who would be most likely to vote against the Tory party.
What point are you making? You want to "prove" that I was wrong? Is that your only obsession?
The 'innuendo' of not knowing is just a fact, there was no measurable way to know whether people were who the said they were.
From your link:
'David Davis, the veteran Conservative MP, told Sky News that he did not think the voter ID reforms were an attempt to gerrymander.
"But if it were, it could turn out to be a spectacular miscalculation", he said, as "the Conservative Party gets the predominant share of the elderly vote".'
What does that look like David Davis is saying? Maybe I just can't read.
Why do you continually speak of my 'obsession' with you? Why don't we try to discuss the actual article rather than those cheap digs?
Tell me why you suddenly believe Rees-Mogg and not David Davis.
Not knowing is not "a fact". There is data on investigations, prosecutions and convictions for illegal voting. That is extremely low. There remains no problem to fix.
You quoted what Davis said in the Sky article. I also provided this direct quote from Davis:
"Voter ID is like a US Republican policy of voter suppression, deliberately trying to undermine the voting capabilities of the disadvantaged and marginalised groups who would overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats."
You read and understood that too, right?
So Davis agreed with Rees-Mogg before the act passed.
That's what these words mean: "David Davis actually SAID exactly the same thing as Rees-Mogg just has."
Why was the Election Act introduced then? Using up months of Parliamentary time. To fix a problem for which there was "a fact" of there being no evidence to require a change, or an attempt to rig elections in the Conservative party's favour?
Based on the evidence of the last several years the latter is far more believable.
Rees-Mogg was the person responsible for taking the legislation through Parliament as Leader of the House of Commons. As a particularly disingenuous individual I will take the view that he said whatever was necessary to get the legislation passed. Now that it has proven useless and he is no longer in Government, he is vocalising his real opinion to show off in front of a friendly audience.
Why do you think he said what he did?
God you're hard work aren't you.
David Davis didn't 'actually' say, he 'also' said, those words matter. Why would you believe one statement but not another?
I genuinely couldn't care less why he said what he said, maybe he is telling the truth.
What I am interested in though, is why, you in particular, are now holding up Rees-Mogg as a pinnacle of truth? You've always ridiculed everything that comes from the man's mouth.
So I have stated nothing less true than you have.
You are equally "hard work".
I have told you why Rees-Mogg's words now seem to align more with his true beliefs. He is now out of Government and showing off to a audience of like minded supporters.
Davis may have thought that it was bad legislation in his original comment and used the example to warn of what it would end up doing.
He may well be hoping that it is not the cynical attempt at voter manipulation that Rees-Mogg has now confirmed that it was.
Same questions to you about Davis and Rees-Mogg now that I've answered you twice.
The only point that I was making is that Rees-Mogg now states that this was a failed attempt to suppress the votes of those who were not Conservative supporters.
This was what many other posters also says. Those making the case that there was a legitimate reason for the voter ID rules (or that no evidence was adequate) should consider explaining their positions as a consequence of this new information or why it makes no difference."I didn't say you have said anything untrue, just that I quoted Davis from your link and you chose to reply with 'actually he said', which doesn't tell the whole picture. And I haven't even spoken about the context in which Rees-Mogg made his statement, or the subsequent clarification. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To all those who insisted that this was necessary and not an attempt to manipulate voting… Mr Rees-Mogg said: "Parties that try and gerrymander end up finding their clever scheme comes back to bite them, as dare I say we found by insisting on voter ID for elections. "We found the people who didn't have ID were elderly and they by and large voted Conservative, so we made it hard for our own voters and we upset a system that worked perfectly well." https://news.sky.com/story/jacob-rees-mogg-suggests-requiring-photo-id-to-vote-was-attempt-to-gerrymander-which-came-back-to-bite-tories-12881602 I don't remember anyone round here saying it was necessary. What I do remember though was plenty of people saying this target the less well off, the young, immigrants etc etc. You know, those people who likely wouldn't vote tory. Turns out it was the opposite
Nobody said that it was necessary? Really? Nobody on the thread thought that there was a problem that needed solving?
Interesting perspective.
The Law change accidentally affected the " wrong" people. That's rather the point of what Rees-Mogg said. They failed to achieve what they set out to and, in fact, had the opposite effect.
You understood something different?
I have an interesting perspective? Feel free to prove me wrong.
Isn't it funny that Rees-Mogg has said this and you're all over it. David Davis said the opposite.
Usually, round here, it's said that Rees-Mogg talks out of his arse, obviously, apart from when it suits.
The point I made at the end was that this law change clearly didn't affect the very people that you all said it would.
I don't need to prove what's written in the thread either about their being fraud or the innuendo of "not knowing" if there is widespread fraud.
David Davis was not the Leader of the House of Commons when the act was introduced. He also said that the act was a threat to democracy.
David Davis actually said exactly the same thing as Rees-Mogg just has.
"Voter ID is like a US Republican policy of voter suppression, deliberately trying to undermine the voting capabilities of the disadvantaged and marginalised groups who would overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats."
"The Joint Committee on Human Rights has published a report into the Elections Bill. The committee warned that the introduction of a photo ID requirement may have a discriminatory impact on certain groups who are less likely to hold any form of photo ID, including older people and people with disabilities. This could create barriers to exercising their right to vote."
You are correct, I thought that the Government would have framed the legislation such that they would achieve their goal. However, they were too incompetent too.
Rees-Mogg has said that they failed to do what they had intended too. Disenfranchise those who would be most likely to vote against the Tory party.
What point are you making? You want to "prove" that I was wrong? Is that your only obsession?
The 'innuendo' of not knowing is just a fact, there was no measurable way to know whether people were who the said they were.
From your link:
'David Davis, the veteran Conservative MP, told Sky News that he did not think the voter ID reforms were an attempt to gerrymander.
"But if it were, it could turn out to be a spectacular miscalculation", he said, as "the Conservative Party gets the predominant share of the elderly vote".'
What does that look like David Davis is saying? Maybe I just can't read.
Why do you continually speak of my 'obsession' with you? Why don't we try to discuss the actual article rather than those cheap digs?
Tell me why you suddenly believe Rees-Mogg and not David Davis.
Not knowing is not "a fact". There is data on investigations, prosecutions and convictions for illegal voting. That is extremely low. There remains no problem to fix.
You quoted what Davis said in the Sky article. I also provided this direct quote from Davis:
"Voter ID is like a US Republican policy of voter suppression, deliberately trying to undermine the voting capabilities of the disadvantaged and marginalised groups who would overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats."
You read and understood that too, right?
So Davis agreed with Rees-Mogg before the act passed.
That's what these words mean: "David Davis actually SAID exactly the same thing as Rees-Mogg just has."
Why was the Election Act introduced then? Using up months of Parliamentary time. To fix a problem for which there was "a fact" of there being no evidence to require a change, or an attempt to rig elections in the Conservative party's favour?
Based on the evidence of the last several years the latter is far more believable.
Rees-Mogg was the person responsible for taking the legislation through Parliament as Leader of the House of Commons. As a particularly disingenuous individual I will take the view that he said whatever was necessary to get the legislation passed. Now that it has proven useless and he is no longer in Government, he is vocalising his real opinion to show off in front of a friendly audience.
Why do you think he said what he did?
God you're hard work aren't you.
David Davis didn't 'actually' say, he 'also' said, those words matter. Why would you believe one statement but not another?
I genuinely couldn't care less why he said what he said, maybe he is telling the truth.
What I am interested in though, is why, you in particular, are now holding up Rees-Mogg as a pinnacle of truth? You've always ridiculed everything that comes from the man's mouth.
So I have stated nothing less true than you have.
You are equally "hard work".
I have told you why Rees-Mogg's words now seem to align more with his true beliefs. He is now out of Government and showing off to a audience of like minded supporters.
Davis may have thought that it was bad legislation in his original comment and used the example to warn of what it would end up doing.
He may well be hoping that it is not the cynical attempt at voter manipulation that Rees-Mogg has now confirmed that it was.
Same questions to you about Davis and Rees-Mogg now that I've answered you twice.
The only point that I was making is that Rees-Mogg now states that this was a failed attempt to suppress the votes of those who were not Conservative supporters.
This was what many other posters also says. Those making the case that there was a legitimate reason for the voter ID rules (or that no evidence was adequate) should consider explaining their positions as a consequence of this new information or why it makes no difference.
I didn't say you have said anything untrue, just that I quoted Davis from your link and you chose to reply with 'actually he said', which doesn't tell the whole picture.
And I haven't even spoken about the context in which Rees-Mogg made his statement, or the subsequent clarification."I replied with additional information explaining what Davis had said in addition to what was in the article that everyone could read, although he wasn't the topic of conversation anyway. No, you still haven't addressed what I actually wrote about. Were you intending to address Rees-Mogg's comments about the legislation being intended to limit non-Conservative votes as many people on the thread stated? Why don't we try to discuss the actual topic, eh? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To all those who insisted that this was necessary and not an attempt to manipulate voting… Mr Rees-Mogg said: "Parties that try and gerrymander end up finding their clever scheme comes back to bite them, as dare I say we found by insisting on voter ID for elections. "We found the people who didn't have ID were elderly and they by and large voted Conservative, so we made it hard for our own voters and we upset a system that worked perfectly well." https://news.sky.com/story/jacob-rees-mogg-suggests-requiring-photo-id-to-vote-was-attempt-to-gerrymander-which-came-back-to-bite-tories-12881602 I don't remember anyone round here saying it was necessary. What I do remember though was plenty of people saying this target the less well off, the young, immigrants etc etc. You know, those people who likely wouldn't vote tory. Turns out it was the opposite
Nobody said that it was necessary? Really? Nobody on the thread thought that there was a problem that needed solving?
Interesting perspective.
The Law change accidentally affected the " wrong" people. That's rather the point of what Rees-Mogg said. They failed to achieve what they set out to and, in fact, had the opposite effect.
You understood something different?
I have an interesting perspective? Feel free to prove me wrong.
Isn't it funny that Rees-Mogg has said this and you're all over it. David Davis said the opposite.
Usually, round here, it's said that Rees-Mogg talks out of his arse, obviously, apart from when it suits.
The point I made at the end was that this law change clearly didn't affect the very people that you all said it would.
I don't need to prove what's written in the thread either about their being fraud or the innuendo of "not knowing" if there is widespread fraud.
David Davis was not the Leader of the House of Commons when the act was introduced. He also said that the act was a threat to democracy.
David Davis actually said exactly the same thing as Rees-Mogg just has.
"Voter ID is like a US Republican policy of voter suppression, deliberately trying to undermine the voting capabilities of the disadvantaged and marginalised groups who would overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats."
"The Joint Committee on Human Rights has published a report into the Elections Bill. The committee warned that the introduction of a photo ID requirement may have a discriminatory impact on certain groups who are less likely to hold any form of photo ID, including older people and people with disabilities. This could create barriers to exercising their right to vote."
You are correct, I thought that the Government would have framed the legislation such that they would achieve their goal. However, they were too incompetent too.
Rees-Mogg has said that they failed to do what they had intended too. Disenfranchise those who would be most likely to vote against the Tory party.
What point are you making? You want to "prove" that I was wrong? Is that your only obsession?
The 'innuendo' of not knowing is just a fact, there was no measurable way to know whether people were who the said they were.
From your link:
'David Davis, the veteran Conservative MP, told Sky News that he did not think the voter ID reforms were an attempt to gerrymander.
"But if it were, it could turn out to be a spectacular miscalculation", he said, as "the Conservative Party gets the predominant share of the elderly vote".'
What does that look like David Davis is saying? Maybe I just can't read.
Why do you continually speak of my 'obsession' with you? Why don't we try to discuss the actual article rather than those cheap digs?
Tell me why you suddenly believe Rees-Mogg and not David Davis.
Not knowing is not "a fact". There is data on investigations, prosecutions and convictions for illegal voting. That is extremely low. There remains no problem to fix.
You quoted what Davis said in the Sky article. I also provided this direct quote from Davis:
"Voter ID is like a US Republican policy of voter suppression, deliberately trying to undermine the voting capabilities of the disadvantaged and marginalised groups who would overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats."
You read and understood that too, right?
So Davis agreed with Rees-Mogg before the act passed.
That's what these words mean: "David Davis actually SAID exactly the same thing as Rees-Mogg just has."
Why was the Election Act introduced then? Using up months of Parliamentary time. To fix a problem for which there was "a fact" of there being no evidence to require a change, or an attempt to rig elections in the Conservative party's favour?
Based on the evidence of the last several years the latter is far more believable.
Rees-Mogg was the person responsible for taking the legislation through Parliament as Leader of the House of Commons. As a particularly disingenuous individual I will take the view that he said whatever was necessary to get the legislation passed. Now that it has proven useless and he is no longer in Government, he is vocalising his real opinion to show off in front of a friendly audience.
Why do you think he said what he did?
God you're hard work aren't you.
David Davis didn't 'actually' say, he 'also' said, those words matter. Why would you believe one statement but not another?
I genuinely couldn't care less why he said what he said, maybe he is telling the truth.
What I am interested in though, is why, you in particular, are now holding up Rees-Mogg as a pinnacle of truth? You've always ridiculed everything that comes from the man's mouth.
So I have stated nothing less true than you have.
You are equally "hard work".
I have told you why Rees-Mogg's words now seem to align more with his true beliefs. He is now out of Government and showing off to a audience of like minded supporters.
Davis may have thought that it was bad legislation in his original comment and used the example to warn of what it would end up doing.
He may well be hoping that it is not the cynical attempt at voter manipulation that Rees-Mogg has now confirmed that it was.
Same questions to you about Davis and Rees-Mogg now that I've answered you twice.
The only point that I was making is that Rees-Mogg now states that this was a failed attempt to suppress the votes of those who were not Conservative supporters.
This was what many other posters also says. Those making the case that there was a legitimate reason for the voter ID rules (or that no evidence was adequate) should consider explaining their positions as a consequence of this new information or why it makes no difference.
I didn't say you have said anything untrue, just that I quoted Davis from your link and you chose to reply with 'actually he said', which doesn't tell the whole picture.
And I haven't even spoken about the context in which Rees-Mogg made his statement, or the subsequent clarification.
I replied with additional information explaining what Davis had said in addition to what was in the article that everyone could read, although he wasn't the topic of conversation anyway.
No, you still haven't addressed what I actually wrote about. Were you intending to address Rees-Mogg's comments about the legislation being intended to limit non-Conservative votes as many people on the thread stated?
Why don't we try to discuss the actual topic, eh?"I still can't believe you think you replied with 'additional' information. That's not what happened but no problem. What is the actual topic? We're gone round so many corners, I can't remember anymore | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To all those who insisted that this was necessary and not an attempt to manipulate voting… Mr Rees-Mogg said: "Parties that try and gerrymander end up finding their clever scheme comes back to bite them, as dare I say we found by insisting on voter ID for elections. "We found the people who didn't have ID were elderly and they by and large voted Conservative, so we made it hard for our own voters and we upset a system that worked perfectly well." https://news.sky.com/story/jacob-rees-mogg-suggests-requiring-photo-id-to-vote-was-attempt-to-gerrymander-which-came-back-to-bite-tories-12881602 I don't remember anyone round here saying it was necessary. What I do remember though was plenty of people saying this target the less well off, the young, immigrants etc etc. You know, those people who likely wouldn't vote tory. Turns out it was the opposite
Nobody said that it was necessary? Really? Nobody on the thread thought that there was a problem that needed solving?
Interesting perspective.
The Law change accidentally affected the " wrong" people. That's rather the point of what Rees-Mogg said. They failed to achieve what they set out to and, in fact, had the opposite effect.
You understood something different?
I have an interesting perspective? Feel free to prove me wrong.
Isn't it funny that Rees-Mogg has said this and you're all over it. David Davis said the opposite.
Usually, round here, it's said that Rees-Mogg talks out of his arse, obviously, apart from when it suits.
The point I made at the end was that this law change clearly didn't affect the very people that you all said it would.
I don't need to prove what's written in the thread either about their being fraud or the innuendo of "not knowing" if there is widespread fraud.
David Davis was not the Leader of the House of Commons when the act was introduced. He also said that the act was a threat to democracy.
David Davis actually said exactly the same thing as Rees-Mogg just has.
"Voter ID is like a US Republican policy of voter suppression, deliberately trying to undermine the voting capabilities of the disadvantaged and marginalised groups who would overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats."
"The Joint Committee on Human Rights has published a report into the Elections Bill. The committee warned that the introduction of a photo ID requirement may have a discriminatory impact on certain groups who are less likely to hold any form of photo ID, including older people and people with disabilities. This could create barriers to exercising their right to vote."
You are correct, I thought that the Government would have framed the legislation such that they would achieve their goal. However, they were too incompetent too.
Rees-Mogg has said that they failed to do what they had intended too. Disenfranchise those who would be most likely to vote against the Tory party.
What point are you making? You want to "prove" that I was wrong? Is that your only obsession?
The 'innuendo' of not knowing is just a fact, there was no measurable way to know whether people were who the said they were.
From your link:
'David Davis, the veteran Conservative MP, told Sky News that he did not think the voter ID reforms were an attempt to gerrymander.
"But if it were, it could turn out to be a spectacular miscalculation", he said, as "the Conservative Party gets the predominant share of the elderly vote".'
What does that look like David Davis is saying? Maybe I just can't read.
Why do you continually speak of my 'obsession' with you? Why don't we try to discuss the actual article rather than those cheap digs?
Tell me why you suddenly believe Rees-Mogg and not David Davis.
Not knowing is not "a fact". There is data on investigations, prosecutions and convictions for illegal voting. That is extremely low. There remains no problem to fix.
You quoted what Davis said in the Sky article. I also provided this direct quote from Davis:
"Voter ID is like a US Republican policy of voter suppression, deliberately trying to undermine the voting capabilities of the disadvantaged and marginalised groups who would overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats."
You read and understood that too, right?
So Davis agreed with Rees-Mogg before the act passed.
That's what these words mean: "David Davis actually SAID exactly the same thing as Rees-Mogg just has."
Why was the Election Act introduced then? Using up months of Parliamentary time. To fix a problem for which there was "a fact" of there being no evidence to require a change, or an attempt to rig elections in the Conservative party's favour?
Based on the evidence of the last several years the latter is far more believable.
Rees-Mogg was the person responsible for taking the legislation through Parliament as Leader of the House of Commons. As a particularly disingenuous individual I will take the view that he said whatever was necessary to get the legislation passed. Now that it has proven useless and he is no longer in Government, he is vocalising his real opinion to show off in front of a friendly audience.
Why do you think he said what he did?
God you're hard work aren't you.
David Davis didn't 'actually' say, he 'also' said, those words matter. Why would you believe one statement but not another?
I genuinely couldn't care less why he said what he said, maybe he is telling the truth.
What I am interested in though, is why, you in particular, are now holding up Rees-Mogg as a pinnacle of truth? You've always ridiculed everything that comes from the man's mouth.
So I have stated nothing less true than you have.
You are equally "hard work".
I have told you why Rees-Mogg's words now seem to align more with his true beliefs. He is now out of Government and showing off to a audience of like minded supporters.
Davis may have thought that it was bad legislation in his original comment and used the example to warn of what it would end up doing.
He may well be hoping that it is not the cynical attempt at voter manipulation that Rees-Mogg has now confirmed that it was.
Same questions to you about Davis and Rees-Mogg now that I've answered you twice.
The only point that I was making is that Rees-Mogg now states that this was a failed attempt to suppress the votes of those who were not Conservative supporters.
This was what many other posters also says. Those making the case that there was a legitimate reason for the voter ID rules (or that no evidence was adequate) should consider explaining their positions as a consequence of this new information or why it makes no difference.
I didn't say you have said anything untrue, just that I quoted Davis from your link and you chose to reply with 'actually he said', which doesn't tell the whole picture.
And I haven't even spoken about the context in which Rees-Mogg made his statement, or the subsequent clarification.
I replied with additional information explaining what Davis had said in addition to what was in the article that everyone could read, although he wasn't the topic of conversation anyway.
No, you still haven't addressed what I actually wrote about. Were you intending to address Rees-Mogg's comments about the legislation being intended to limit non-Conservative votes as many people on the thread stated?
Why don't we try to discuss the actual topic, eh?
I still can't believe you think you replied with 'additional' information. That's not what happened but no problem.
What is the actual topic? We're gone round so many corners, I can't remember anymore "You struggle to follow many things because you are busy trying to prove a point against me rather than addressing the point at hand. The topic is voter ID and what you chose to reply to but not address is at the top of this thread. You went around the houses, not me. How Rees-Mogg's speech reflect on those who claimed that voter ID was required and not an attempt at voter suppression of non-Conservative voter's? How would you like to reinterpret what he said, if indeed you have any capability of addressing what was written? All these words and still nothing from you. Alternatively, just don't and claim a "win" of something. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To all those who insisted that this was necessary and not an attempt to manipulate voting… Mr Rees-Mogg said: "Parties that try and gerrymander end up finding their clever scheme comes back to bite them, as dare I say we found by insisting on voter ID for elections. "We found the people who didn't have ID were elderly and they by and large voted Conservative, so we made it hard for our own voters and we upset a system that worked perfectly well." https://news.sky.com/story/jacob-rees-mogg-suggests-requiring-photo-id-to-vote-was-attempt-to-gerrymander-which-came-back-to-bite-tories-12881602 I don't remember anyone round here saying it was necessary. What I do remember though was plenty of people saying this target the less well off, the young, immigrants etc etc. You know, those people who likely wouldn't vote tory. Turns out it was the opposite
Nobody said that it was necessary? Really? Nobody on the thread thought that there was a problem that needed solving?
Interesting perspective.
The Law change accidentally affected the " wrong" people. That's rather the point of what Rees-Mogg said. They failed to achieve what they set out to and, in fact, had the opposite effect.
You understood something different?
I have an interesting perspective? Feel free to prove me wrong.
Isn't it funny that Rees-Mogg has said this and you're all over it. David Davis said the opposite.
Usually, round here, it's said that Rees-Mogg talks out of his arse, obviously, apart from when it suits.
The point I made at the end was that this law change clearly didn't affect the very people that you all said it would.
I don't need to prove what's written in the thread either about their being fraud or the innuendo of "not knowing" if there is widespread fraud.
David Davis was not the Leader of the House of Commons when the act was introduced. He also said that the act was a threat to democracy.
David Davis actually said exactly the same thing as Rees-Mogg just has.
"Voter ID is like a US Republican policy of voter suppression, deliberately trying to undermine the voting capabilities of the disadvantaged and marginalised groups who would overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats."
"The Joint Committee on Human Rights has published a report into the Elections Bill. The committee warned that the introduction of a photo ID requirement may have a discriminatory impact on certain groups who are less likely to hold any form of photo ID, including older people and people with disabilities. This could create barriers to exercising their right to vote."
You are correct, I thought that the Government would have framed the legislation such that they would achieve their goal. However, they were too incompetent too.
Rees-Mogg has said that they failed to do what they had intended too. Disenfranchise those who would be most likely to vote against the Tory party.
What point are you making? You want to "prove" that I was wrong? Is that your only obsession?
The 'innuendo' of not knowing is just a fact, there was no measurable way to know whether people were who the said they were.
From your link:
'David Davis, the veteran Conservative MP, told Sky News that he did not think the voter ID reforms were an attempt to gerrymander.
"But if it were, it could turn out to be a spectacular miscalculation", he said, as "the Conservative Party gets the predominant share of the elderly vote".'
What does that look like David Davis is saying? Maybe I just can't read.
Why do you continually speak of my 'obsession' with you? Why don't we try to discuss the actual article rather than those cheap digs?
Tell me why you suddenly believe Rees-Mogg and not David Davis.
Not knowing is not "a fact". There is data on investigations, prosecutions and convictions for illegal voting. That is extremely low. There remains no problem to fix.
You quoted what Davis said in the Sky article. I also provided this direct quote from Davis:
"Voter ID is like a US Republican policy of voter suppression, deliberately trying to undermine the voting capabilities of the disadvantaged and marginalised groups who would overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats."
You read and understood that too, right?
So Davis agreed with Rees-Mogg before the act passed.
That's what these words mean: "David Davis actually SAID exactly the same thing as Rees-Mogg just has."
Why was the Election Act introduced then? Using up months of Parliamentary time. To fix a problem for which there was "a fact" of there being no evidence to require a change, or an attempt to rig elections in the Conservative party's favour?
Based on the evidence of the last several years the latter is far more believable.
Rees-Mogg was the person responsible for taking the legislation through Parliament as Leader of the House of Commons. As a particularly disingenuous individual I will take the view that he said whatever was necessary to get the legislation passed. Now that it has proven useless and he is no longer in Government, he is vocalising his real opinion to show off in front of a friendly audience.
Why do you think he said what he did?
God you're hard work aren't you.
David Davis didn't 'actually' say, he 'also' said, those words matter. Why would you believe one statement but not another?
I genuinely couldn't care less why he said what he said, maybe he is telling the truth.
What I am interested in though, is why, you in particular, are now holding up Rees-Mogg as a pinnacle of truth? You've always ridiculed everything that comes from the man's mouth.
So I have stated nothing less true than you have.
You are equally "hard work".
I have told you why Rees-Mogg's words now seem to align more with his true beliefs. He is now out of Government and showing off to a audience of like minded supporters.
Davis may have thought that it was bad legislation in his original comment and used the example to warn of what it would end up doing.
He may well be hoping that it is not the cynical attempt at voter manipulation that Rees-Mogg has now confirmed that it was.
Same questions to you about Davis and Rees-Mogg now that I've answered you twice.
The only point that I was making is that Rees-Mogg now states that this was a failed attempt to suppress the votes of those who were not Conservative supporters.
This was what many other posters also says. Those making the case that there was a legitimate reason for the voter ID rules (or that no evidence was adequate) should consider explaining their positions as a consequence of this new information or why it makes no difference.
I didn't say you have said anything untrue, just that I quoted Davis from your link and you chose to reply with 'actually he said', which doesn't tell the whole picture.
And I haven't even spoken about the context in which Rees-Mogg made his statement, or the subsequent clarification.
I replied with additional information explaining what Davis had said in addition to what was in the article that everyone could read, although he wasn't the topic of conversation anyway.
No, you still haven't addressed what I actually wrote about. Were you intending to address Rees-Mogg's comments about the legislation being intended to limit non-Conservative votes as many people on the thread stated?
Why don't we try to discuss the actual topic, eh?
I still can't believe you think you replied with 'additional' information. That's not what happened but no problem.
What is the actual topic? We're gone round so many corners, I can't remember anymore
You struggle to follow many things because you are busy trying to prove a point against me rather than addressing the point at hand.
The topic is voter ID and what you chose to reply to but not address is at the top of this thread. You went around the houses, not me.
How Rees-Mogg's speech reflect on those who claimed that voter ID was required and not an attempt at voter suppression of non-Conservative voter's?
How would you like to reinterpret what he said, if indeed you have any capability of addressing what was written?
All these words and still nothing from you.
Alternatively, just don't and claim a "win" of something."Why is everything you've said there about me and not the topic? I thought you wanted to discuss the topic? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To all those who insisted that this was necessary and not an attempt to manipulate voting… Mr Rees-Mogg said: "Parties that try and gerrymander end up finding their clever scheme comes back to bite them, as dare I say we found by insisting on voter ID for elections. "We found the people who didn't have ID were elderly and they by and large voted Conservative, so we made it hard for our own voters and we upset a system that worked perfectly well." https://news.sky.com/story/jacob-rees-mogg-suggests-requiring-photo-id-to-vote-was-attempt-to-gerrymander-which-came-back-to-bite-tories-12881602 I don't remember anyone round here saying it was necessary. What I do remember though was plenty of people saying this target the less well off, the young, immigrants etc etc. You know, those people who likely wouldn't vote tory. Turns out it was the opposite
Nobody said that it was necessary? Really? Nobody on the thread thought that there was a problem that needed solving?
Interesting perspective.
The Law change accidentally affected the " wrong" people. That's rather the point of what Rees-Mogg said. They failed to achieve what they set out to and, in fact, had the opposite effect.
You understood something different?
I have an interesting perspective? Feel free to prove me wrong.
Isn't it funny that Rees-Mogg has said this and you're all over it. David Davis said the opposite.
Usually, round here, it's said that Rees-Mogg talks out of his arse, obviously, apart from when it suits.
The point I made at the end was that this law change clearly didn't affect the very people that you all said it would.
I don't need to prove what's written in the thread either about their being fraud or the innuendo of "not knowing" if there is widespread fraud.
David Davis was not the Leader of the House of Commons when the act was introduced. He also said that the act was a threat to democracy.
David Davis actually said exactly the same thing as Rees-Mogg just has.
"Voter ID is like a US Republican policy of voter suppression, deliberately trying to undermine the voting capabilities of the disadvantaged and marginalised groups who would overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats."
"The Joint Committee on Human Rights has published a report into the Elections Bill. The committee warned that the introduction of a photo ID requirement may have a discriminatory impact on certain groups who are less likely to hold any form of photo ID, including older people and people with disabilities. This could create barriers to exercising their right to vote."
You are correct, I thought that the Government would have framed the legislation such that they would achieve their goal. However, they were too incompetent too.
Rees-Mogg has said that they failed to do what they had intended too. Disenfranchise those who would be most likely to vote against the Tory party.
What point are you making? You want to "prove" that I was wrong? Is that your only obsession?
The 'innuendo' of not knowing is just a fact, there was no measurable way to know whether people were who the said they were.
From your link:
'David Davis, the veteran Conservative MP, told Sky News that he did not think the voter ID reforms were an attempt to gerrymander.
"But if it were, it could turn out to be a spectacular miscalculation", he said, as "the Conservative Party gets the predominant share of the elderly vote".'
What does that look like David Davis is saying? Maybe I just can't read.
Why do you continually speak of my 'obsession' with you? Why don't we try to discuss the actual article rather than those cheap digs?
Tell me why you suddenly believe Rees-Mogg and not David Davis.
Not knowing is not "a fact". There is data on investigations, prosecutions and convictions for illegal voting. That is extremely low. There remains no problem to fix.
You quoted what Davis said in the Sky article. I also provided this direct quote from Davis:
"Voter ID is like a US Republican policy of voter suppression, deliberately trying to undermine the voting capabilities of the disadvantaged and marginalised groups who would overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats."
You read and understood that too, right?
So Davis agreed with Rees-Mogg before the act passed.
That's what these words mean: "David Davis actually SAID exactly the same thing as Rees-Mogg just has."
Why was the Election Act introduced then? Using up months of Parliamentary time. To fix a problem for which there was "a fact" of there being no evidence to require a change, or an attempt to rig elections in the Conservative party's favour?
Based on the evidence of the last several years the latter is far more believable.
Rees-Mogg was the person responsible for taking the legislation through Parliament as Leader of the House of Commons. As a particularly disingenuous individual I will take the view that he said whatever was necessary to get the legislation passed. Now that it has proven useless and he is no longer in Government, he is vocalising his real opinion to show off in front of a friendly audience.
Why do you think he said what he did?
God you're hard work aren't you.
David Davis didn't 'actually' say, he 'also' said, those words matter. Why would you believe one statement but not another?
I genuinely couldn't care less why he said what he said, maybe he is telling the truth.
What I am interested in though, is why, you in particular, are now holding up Rees-Mogg as a pinnacle of truth? You've always ridiculed everything that comes from the man's mouth.
So I have stated nothing less true than you have.
You are equally "hard work".
I have told you why Rees-Mogg's words now seem to align more with his true beliefs. He is now out of Government and showing off to a audience of like minded supporters.
Davis may have thought that it was bad legislation in his original comment and used the example to warn of what it would end up doing.
He may well be hoping that it is not the cynical attempt at voter manipulation that Rees-Mogg has now confirmed that it was.
Same questions to you about Davis and Rees-Mogg now that I've answered you twice.
The only point that I was making is that Rees-Mogg now states that this was a failed attempt to suppress the votes of those who were not Conservative supporters.
This was what many other posters also says. Those making the case that there was a legitimate reason for the voter ID rules (or that no evidence was adequate) should consider explaining their positions as a consequence of this new information or why it makes no difference.
I didn't say you have said anything untrue, just that I quoted Davis from your link and you chose to reply with 'actually he said', which doesn't tell the whole picture.
And I haven't even spoken about the context in which Rees-Mogg made his statement, or the subsequent clarification.
I replied with additional information explaining what Davis had said in addition to what was in the article that everyone could read, although he wasn't the topic of conversation anyway.
No, you still haven't addressed what I actually wrote about. Were you intending to address Rees-Mogg's comments about the legislation being intended to limit non-Conservative votes as many people on the thread stated?
Why don't we try to discuss the actual topic, eh?
I still can't believe you think you replied with 'additional' information. That's not what happened but no problem.
What is the actual topic? We're gone round so many corners, I can't remember anymore
You struggle to follow many things because you are busy trying to prove a point against me rather than addressing the point at hand.
The topic is voter ID and what you chose to reply to but not address is at the top of this thread. You went around the houses, not me.
How Rees-Mogg's speech reflect on those who claimed that voter ID was required and not an attempt at voter suppression of non-Conservative voter's?
How would you like to reinterpret what he said, if indeed you have any capability of addressing what was written?
All these words and still nothing from you.
Alternatively, just don't and claim a "win" of something.
Why is everything you've said there about me and not the topic?
I thought you wanted to discuss the topic?"I'm bored of you still not addressing the point, so I'm doing what you do and talking about any old crap. "The topic is voter ID" "How Rees-Mogg's speech reflect on those who claimed that voter ID was required and not an attempt at voter suppression of non-Conservative voter's?" Answer, don't answer. 20 odd posts later still unaddressed. You are well aware of that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To all those who insisted that this was necessary and not an attempt to manipulate voting… Mr Rees-Mogg said: "Parties that try and gerrymander end up finding their clever scheme comes back to bite them, as dare I say we found by insisting on voter ID for elections. "We found the people who didn't have ID were elderly and they by and large voted Conservative, so we made it hard for our own voters and we upset a system that worked perfectly well." https://news.sky.com/story/jacob-rees-mogg-suggests-requiring-photo-id-to-vote-was-attempt-to-gerrymander-which-came-back-to-bite-tories-12881602 I don't remember anyone round here saying it was necessary. What I do remember though was plenty of people saying this target the less well off, the young, immigrants etc etc. You know, those people who likely wouldn't vote tory. Turns out it was the opposite
Nobody said that it was necessary? Really? Nobody on the thread thought that there was a problem that needed solving?
Interesting perspective.
The Law change accidentally affected the " wrong" people. That's rather the point of what Rees-Mogg said. They failed to achieve what they set out to and, in fact, had the opposite effect.
You understood something different?
I have an interesting perspective? Feel free to prove me wrong.
Isn't it funny that Rees-Mogg has said this and you're all over it. David Davis said the opposite.
Usually, round here, it's said that Rees-Mogg talks out of his arse, obviously, apart from when it suits.
The point I made at the end was that this law change clearly didn't affect the very people that you all said it would.
I don't need to prove what's written in the thread either about their being fraud or the innuendo of "not knowing" if there is widespread fraud.
David Davis was not the Leader of the House of Commons when the act was introduced. He also said that the act was a threat to democracy.
David Davis actually said exactly the same thing as Rees-Mogg just has.
"Voter ID is like a US Republican policy of voter suppression, deliberately trying to undermine the voting capabilities of the disadvantaged and marginalised groups who would overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats."
"The Joint Committee on Human Rights has published a report into the Elections Bill. The committee warned that the introduction of a photo ID requirement may have a discriminatory impact on certain groups who are less likely to hold any form of photo ID, including older people and people with disabilities. This could create barriers to exercising their right to vote."
You are correct, I thought that the Government would have framed the legislation such that they would achieve their goal. However, they were too incompetent too.
Rees-Mogg has said that they failed to do what they had intended too. Disenfranchise those who would be most likely to vote against the Tory party.
What point are you making? You want to "prove" that I was wrong? Is that your only obsession?
The 'innuendo' of not knowing is just a fact, there was no measurable way to know whether people were who the said they were.
From your link:
'David Davis, the veteran Conservative MP, told Sky News that he did not think the voter ID reforms were an attempt to gerrymander.
"But if it were, it could turn out to be a spectacular miscalculation", he said, as "the Conservative Party gets the predominant share of the elderly vote".'
What does that look like David Davis is saying? Maybe I just can't read.
Why do you continually speak of my 'obsession' with you? Why don't we try to discuss the actual article rather than those cheap digs?
Tell me why you suddenly believe Rees-Mogg and not David Davis.
Not knowing is not "a fact". There is data on investigations, prosecutions and convictions for illegal voting. That is extremely low. There remains no problem to fix.
You quoted what Davis said in the Sky article. I also provided this direct quote from Davis:
"Voter ID is like a US Republican policy of voter suppression, deliberately trying to undermine the voting capabilities of the disadvantaged and marginalised groups who would overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats."
You read and understood that too, right?
So Davis agreed with Rees-Mogg before the act passed.
That's what these words mean: "David Davis actually SAID exactly the same thing as Rees-Mogg just has."
Why was the Election Act introduced then? Using up months of Parliamentary time. To fix a problem for which there was "a fact" of there being no evidence to require a change, or an attempt to rig elections in the Conservative party's favour?
Based on the evidence of the last several years the latter is far more believable.
Rees-Mogg was the person responsible for taking the legislation through Parliament as Leader of the House of Commons. As a particularly disingenuous individual I will take the view that he said whatever was necessary to get the legislation passed. Now that it has proven useless and he is no longer in Government, he is vocalising his real opinion to show off in front of a friendly audience.
Why do you think he said what he did?
God you're hard work aren't you.
David Davis didn't 'actually' say, he 'also' said, those words matter. Why would you believe one statement but not another?
I genuinely couldn't care less why he said what he said, maybe he is telling the truth.
What I am interested in though, is why, you in particular, are now holding up Rees-Mogg as a pinnacle of truth? You've always ridiculed everything that comes from the man's mouth.
So I have stated nothing less true than you have.
You are equally "hard work".
I have told you why Rees-Mogg's words now seem to align more with his true beliefs. He is now out of Government and showing off to a audience of like minded supporters.
Davis may have thought that it was bad legislation in his original comment and used the example to warn of what it would end up doing.
He may well be hoping that it is not the cynical attempt at voter manipulation that Rees-Mogg has now confirmed that it was.
Same questions to you about Davis and Rees-Mogg now that I've answered you twice.
The only point that I was making is that Rees-Mogg now states that this was a failed attempt to suppress the votes of those who were not Conservative supporters.
This was what many other posters also says. Those making the case that there was a legitimate reason for the voter ID rules (or that no evidence was adequate) should consider explaining their positions as a consequence of this new information or why it makes no difference.
I didn't say you have said anything untrue, just that I quoted Davis from your link and you chose to reply with 'actually he said', which doesn't tell the whole picture.
And I haven't even spoken about the context in which Rees-Mogg made his statement, or the subsequent clarification.
I replied with additional information explaining what Davis had said in addition to what was in the article that everyone could read, although he wasn't the topic of conversation anyway.
No, you still haven't addressed what I actually wrote about. Were you intending to address Rees-Mogg's comments about the legislation being intended to limit non-Conservative votes as many people on the thread stated?
Why don't we try to discuss the actual topic, eh?
I still can't believe you think you replied with 'additional' information. That's not what happened but no problem.
What is the actual topic? We're gone round so many corners, I can't remember anymore
You struggle to follow many things because you are busy trying to prove a point against me rather than addressing the point at hand.
The topic is voter ID and what you chose to reply to but not address is at the top of this thread. You went around the houses, not me.
How Rees-Mogg's speech reflect on those who claimed that voter ID was required and not an attempt at voter suppression of non-Conservative voter's?
How would you like to reinterpret what he said, if indeed you have any capability of addressing what was written?
All these words and still nothing from you.
Alternatively, just don't and claim a "win" of something.
Why is everything you've said there about me and not the topic?
I thought you wanted to discuss the topic?
I'm bored of you still not addressing the point, so I'm doing what you do and talking about any old crap.
"The topic is voter ID"
"How Rees-Mogg's speech reflect on those who claimed that voter ID was required and not an attempt at voter suppression of non-Conservative voter's?"
Answer, don't answer. 20 odd posts later still unaddressed. You are well aware of that."I already answered in my first post after yours. I don't remember anyone claiming ID is needed to get rid of voter fraud. I've just read everything back to make sure, I missed maybe one you could argue said it was needed for that reason. And as has happened, apparently, it actually suppressed elderly Tory voters according to Rees-Mogg. You can choose to believe him, that's cool, I'm just confused as to why you previously believed Davis and now you're saying he's talking shit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To all those who insisted that this was necessary and not an attempt to manipulate voting… Mr Rees-Mogg said: "Parties that try and gerrymander end up finding their clever scheme comes back to bite them, as dare I say we found by insisting on voter ID for elections. "We found the people who didn't have ID were elderly and they by and large voted Conservative, so we made it hard for our own voters and we upset a system that worked perfectly well." https://news.sky.com/story/jacob-rees-mogg-suggests-requiring-photo-id-to-vote-was-attempt-to-gerrymander-which-came-back-to-bite-tories-12881602 I don't remember anyone round here saying it was necessary. What I do remember though was plenty of people saying this target the less well off, the young, immigrants etc etc. You know, those people who likely wouldn't vote tory. Turns out it was the opposite
Nobody said that it was necessary? Really? Nobody on the thread thought that there was a problem that needed solving?
Interesting perspective.
The Law change accidentally affected the " wrong" people. That's rather the point of what Rees-Mogg said. They failed to achieve what they set out to and, in fact, had the opposite effect.
You understood something different?
I have an interesting perspective? Feel free to prove me wrong.
Isn't it funny that Rees-Mogg has said this and you're all over it. David Davis said the opposite.
Usually, round here, it's said that Rees-Mogg talks out of his arse, obviously, apart from when it suits.
The point I made at the end was that this law change clearly didn't affect the very people that you all said it would.
I don't need to prove what's written in the thread either about their being fraud or the innuendo of "not knowing" if there is widespread fraud.
David Davis was not the Leader of the House of Commons when the act was introduced. He also said that the act was a threat to democracy.
David Davis actually said exactly the same thing as Rees-Mogg just has.
"Voter ID is like a US Republican policy of voter suppression, deliberately trying to undermine the voting capabilities of the disadvantaged and marginalised groups who would overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats."
"The Joint Committee on Human Rights has published a report into the Elections Bill. The committee warned that the introduction of a photo ID requirement may have a discriminatory impact on certain groups who are less likely to hold any form of photo ID, including older people and people with disabilities. This could create barriers to exercising their right to vote."
You are correct, I thought that the Government would have framed the legislation such that they would achieve their goal. However, they were too incompetent too.
Rees-Mogg has said that they failed to do what they had intended too. Disenfranchise those who would be most likely to vote against the Tory party.
What point are you making? You want to "prove" that I was wrong? Is that your only obsession?
The 'innuendo' of not knowing is just a fact, there was no measurable way to know whether people were who the said they were.
From your link:
'David Davis, the veteran Conservative MP, told Sky News that he did not think the voter ID reforms were an attempt to gerrymander.
"But if it were, it could turn out to be a spectacular miscalculation", he said, as "the Conservative Party gets the predominant share of the elderly vote".'
What does that look like David Davis is saying? Maybe I just can't read.
Why do you continually speak of my 'obsession' with you? Why don't we try to discuss the actual article rather than those cheap digs?
Tell me why you suddenly believe Rees-Mogg and not David Davis.
Not knowing is not "a fact". There is data on investigations, prosecutions and convictions for illegal voting. That is extremely low. There remains no problem to fix.
You quoted what Davis said in the Sky article. I also provided this direct quote from Davis:
"Voter ID is like a US Republican policy of voter suppression, deliberately trying to undermine the voting capabilities of the disadvantaged and marginalised groups who would overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats."
You read and understood that too, right?
So Davis agreed with Rees-Mogg before the act passed.
That's what these words mean: "David Davis actually SAID exactly the same thing as Rees-Mogg just has."
Why was the Election Act introduced then? Using up months of Parliamentary time. To fix a problem for which there was "a fact" of there being no evidence to require a change, or an attempt to rig elections in the Conservative party's favour?
Based on the evidence of the last several years the latter is far more believable.
Rees-Mogg was the person responsible for taking the legislation through Parliament as Leader of the House of Commons. As a particularly disingenuous individual I will take the view that he said whatever was necessary to get the legislation passed. Now that it has proven useless and he is no longer in Government, he is vocalising his real opinion to show off in front of a friendly audience.
Why do you think he said what he did?
God you're hard work aren't you.
David Davis didn't 'actually' say, he 'also' said, those words matter. Why would you believe one statement but not another?
I genuinely couldn't care less why he said what he said, maybe he is telling the truth.
What I am interested in though, is why, you in particular, are now holding up Rees-Mogg as a pinnacle of truth? You've always ridiculed everything that comes from the man's mouth.
So I have stated nothing less true than you have.
You are equally "hard work".
I have told you why Rees-Mogg's words now seem to align more with his true beliefs. He is now out of Government and showing off to a audience of like minded supporters.
Davis may have thought that it was bad legislation in his original comment and used the example to warn of what it would end up doing.
He may well be hoping that it is not the cynical attempt at voter manipulation that Rees-Mogg has now confirmed that it was.
Same questions to you about Davis and Rees-Mogg now that I've answered you twice.
The only point that I was making is that Rees-Mogg now states that this was a failed attempt to suppress the votes of those who were not Conservative supporters.
This was what many other posters also says. Those making the case that there was a legitimate reason for the voter ID rules (or that no evidence was adequate) should consider explaining their positions as a consequence of this new information or why it makes no difference.
I didn't say you have said anything untrue, just that I quoted Davis from your link and you chose to reply with 'actually he said', which doesn't tell the whole picture.
And I haven't even spoken about the context in which Rees-Mogg made his statement, or the subsequent clarification.
I replied with additional information explaining what Davis had said in addition to what was in the article that everyone could read, although he wasn't the topic of conversation anyway.
No, you still haven't addressed what I actually wrote about. Were you intending to address Rees-Mogg's comments about the legislation being intended to limit non-Conservative votes as many people on the thread stated?
Why don't we try to discuss the actual topic, eh?
I still can't believe you think you replied with 'additional' information. That's not what happened but no problem.
What is the actual topic? We're gone round so many corners, I can't remember anymore
You struggle to follow many things because you are busy trying to prove a point against me rather than addressing the point at hand.
The topic is voter ID and what you chose to reply to but not address is at the top of this thread. You went around the houses, not me.
How Rees-Mogg's speech reflect on those who claimed that voter ID was required and not an attempt at voter suppression of non-Conservative voter's?
How would you like to reinterpret what he said, if indeed you have any capability of addressing what was written?
All these words and still nothing from you.
Alternatively, just don't and claim a "win" of something.
Why is everything you've said there about me and not the topic?
I thought you wanted to discuss the topic?
I'm bored of you still not addressing the point, so I'm doing what you do and talking about any old crap.
"The topic is voter ID"
"How Rees-Mogg's speech reflect on those who claimed that voter ID was required and not an attempt at voter suppression of non-Conservative voter's?"
Answer, don't answer. 20 odd posts later still unaddressed. You are well aware of that.
I already answered in my first post after yours. I don't remember anyone claiming ID is needed to get rid of voter fraud. I've just read everything back to make sure, I missed maybe one you could argue said it was needed for that reason.
And as has happened, apparently, it actually suppressed elderly Tory voters according to Rees-Mogg.
You can choose to believe him, that's cool, I'm just confused as to why you previously believed Davis and now you're saying he's talking shit.
""It helps to make election fraud less likely." Reams of speculation that there "might" be lots of voter fraud and all sorts of ways to carry it out. Many people saying there is no problem getting voter ID and it won't cause a problem. So, make a significant change to voting anyway because "perhaps". Did Rees-Mogg say that they tried and failed to gerrymander or not? Did he say that it backfired or not? Does that mean that the voter ID requirement caused a problem or not? I've explained my reasoning. You've explained nothing. Do you think that voter ID is required? Why do you think that David and Rees-Mogg have said what they said? Again, as you still seem unable to address the actual point that I raised: Where does Rees-Mogg saying that this was an attempt to gerrymander put those people who thought that the introduction of ID was not a problem. He said very clearly that it was intended to gerrymander but it caused a problem on the "wrong" group of voters for the Conservative party. In context he was trying to criticise the Labour party proposal to introduce voting for EU citizens and 16 year old. Neither of which I agree with either. However, he chose to give an example of gerrymandering failing, which was the voter ID law. The News Agents have the full clip posted on YouTube. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To all those who insisted that this was necessary and not an attempt to manipulate voting… Mr Rees-Mogg said: "Parties that try and gerrymander end up finding their clever scheme comes back to bite them, as dare I say we found by insisting on voter ID for elections. "We found the people who didn't have ID were elderly and they by and large voted Conservative, so we made it hard for our own voters and we upset a system that worked perfectly well." https://news.sky.com/story/jacob-rees-mogg-suggests-requiring-photo-id-to-vote-was-attempt-to-gerrymander-which-came-back-to-bite-tories-12881602 I don't remember anyone round here saying it was necessary. What I do remember though was plenty of people saying this target the less well off, the young, immigrants etc etc. You know, those people who likely wouldn't vote tory. Turns out it was the opposite
Nobody said that it was necessary? Really? Nobody on the thread thought that there was a problem that needed solving?
Interesting perspective.
The Law change accidentally affected the " wrong" people. That's rather the point of what Rees-Mogg said. They failed to achieve what they set out to and, in fact, had the opposite effect.
You understood something different?
I have an interesting perspective? Feel free to prove me wrong.
Isn't it funny that Rees-Mogg has said this and you're all over it. David Davis said the opposite.
Usually, round here, it's said that Rees-Mogg talks out of his arse, obviously, apart from when it suits.
The point I made at the end was that this law change clearly didn't affect the very people that you all said it would.
I don't need to prove what's written in the thread either about their being fraud or the innuendo of "not knowing" if there is widespread fraud.
David Davis was not the Leader of the House of Commons when the act was introduced. He also said that the act was a threat to democracy.
David Davis actually said exactly the same thing as Rees-Mogg just has.
"Voter ID is like a US Republican policy of voter suppression, deliberately trying to undermine the voting capabilities of the disadvantaged and marginalised groups who would overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats."
"The Joint Committee on Human Rights has published a report into the Elections Bill. The committee warned that the introduction of a photo ID requirement may have a discriminatory impact on certain groups who are less likely to hold any form of photo ID, including older people and people with disabilities. This could create barriers to exercising their right to vote."
You are correct, I thought that the Government would have framed the legislation such that they would achieve their goal. However, they were too incompetent too.
Rees-Mogg has said that they failed to do what they had intended too. Disenfranchise those who would be most likely to vote against the Tory party.
What point are you making? You want to "prove" that I was wrong? Is that your only obsession?
The 'innuendo' of not knowing is just a fact, there was no measurable way to know whether people were who the said they were.
From your link:
'David Davis, the veteran Conservative MP, told Sky News that he did not think the voter ID reforms were an attempt to gerrymander.
"But if it were, it could turn out to be a spectacular miscalculation", he said, as "the Conservative Party gets the predominant share of the elderly vote".'
What does that look like David Davis is saying? Maybe I just can't read.
Why do you continually speak of my 'obsession' with you? Why don't we try to discuss the actual article rather than those cheap digs?
Tell me why you suddenly believe Rees-Mogg and not David Davis.
Not knowing is not "a fact". There is data on investigations, prosecutions and convictions for illegal voting. That is extremely low. There remains no problem to fix.
You quoted what Davis said in the Sky article. I also provided this direct quote from Davis:
"Voter ID is like a US Republican policy of voter suppression, deliberately trying to undermine the voting capabilities of the disadvantaged and marginalised groups who would overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats."
You read and understood that too, right?
So Davis agreed with Rees-Mogg before the act passed.
That's what these words mean: "David Davis actually SAID exactly the same thing as Rees-Mogg just has."
Why was the Election Act introduced then? Using up months of Parliamentary time. To fix a problem for which there was "a fact" of there being no evidence to require a change, or an attempt to rig elections in the Conservative party's favour?
Based on the evidence of the last several years the latter is far more believable.
Rees-Mogg was the person responsible for taking the legislation through Parliament as Leader of the House of Commons. As a particularly disingenuous individual I will take the view that he said whatever was necessary to get the legislation passed. Now that it has proven useless and he is no longer in Government, he is vocalising his real opinion to show off in front of a friendly audience.
Why do you think he said what he did?
God you're hard work aren't you.
David Davis didn't 'actually' say, he 'also' said, those words matter. Why would you believe one statement but not another?
I genuinely couldn't care less why he said what he said, maybe he is telling the truth.
What I am interested in though, is why, you in particular, are now holding up Rees-Mogg as a pinnacle of truth? You've always ridiculed everything that comes from the man's mouth.
So I have stated nothing less true than you have.
You are equally "hard work".
I have told you why Rees-Mogg's words now seem to align more with his true beliefs. He is now out of Government and showing off to a audience of like minded supporters.
Davis may have thought that it was bad legislation in his original comment and used the example to warn of what it would end up doing.
He may well be hoping that it is not the cynical attempt at voter manipulation that Rees-Mogg has now confirmed that it was.
Same questions to you about Davis and Rees-Mogg now that I've answered you twice.
The only point that I was making is that Rees-Mogg now states that this was a failed attempt to suppress the votes of those who were not Conservative supporters.
This was what many other posters also says. Those making the case that there was a legitimate reason for the voter ID rules (or that no evidence was adequate) should consider explaining their positions as a consequence of this new information or why it makes no difference.
I didn't say you have said anything untrue, just that I quoted Davis from your link and you chose to reply with 'actually he said', which doesn't tell the whole picture.
And I haven't even spoken about the context in which Rees-Mogg made his statement, or the subsequent clarification.
I replied with additional information explaining what Davis had said in addition to what was in the article that everyone could read, although he wasn't the topic of conversation anyway.
No, you still haven't addressed what I actually wrote about. Were you intending to address Rees-Mogg's comments about the legislation being intended to limit non-Conservative votes as many people on the thread stated?
Why don't we try to discuss the actual topic, eh?
I still can't believe you think you replied with 'additional' information. That's not what happened but no problem.
What is the actual topic? We're gone round so many corners, I can't remember anymore
You struggle to follow many things because you are busy trying to prove a point against me rather than addressing the point at hand.
The topic is voter ID and what you chose to reply to but not address is at the top of this thread. You went around the houses, not me.
How Rees-Mogg's speech reflect on those who claimed that voter ID was required and not an attempt at voter suppression of non-Conservative voter's?
How would you like to reinterpret what he said, if indeed you have any capability of addressing what was written?
All these words and still nothing from you.
Alternatively, just don't and claim a "win" of something.
Why is everything you've said there about me and not the topic?
I thought you wanted to discuss the topic?
I'm bored of you still not addressing the point, so I'm doing what you do and talking about any old crap.
"The topic is voter ID"
"How Rees-Mogg's speech reflect on those who claimed that voter ID was required and not an attempt at voter suppression of non-Conservative voter's?"
Answer, don't answer. 20 odd posts later still unaddressed. You are well aware of that.
I already answered in my first post after yours. I don't remember anyone claiming ID is needed to get rid of voter fraud. I've just read everything back to make sure, I missed maybe one you could argue said it was needed for that reason.
And as has happened, apparently, it actually suppressed elderly Tory voters according to Rees-Mogg.
You can choose to believe him, that's cool, I'm just confused as to why you previously believed Davis and now you're saying he's talking shit.
"It helps to make election fraud less likely."
Reams of speculation that there "might" be lots of voter fraud and all sorts of ways to carry it out.
Many people saying there is no problem getting voter ID and it won't cause a problem.
So, make a significant change to voting anyway because "perhaps".
Did Rees-Mogg say that they tried and failed to gerrymander or not? Did he say that it backfired or not?
Does that mean that the voter ID requirement caused a problem or not?
I've explained my reasoning.
You've explained nothing.
Do you think that voter ID is required?
Why do you think that David and Rees-Mogg have said what they said?
Again, as you still seem unable to address the actual point that I raised:
Where does Rees-Mogg saying that this was an attempt to gerrymander put those people who thought that the introduction of ID was not a problem.
He said very clearly that it was intended to gerrymander but it caused a problem on the "wrong" group of voters for the Conservative party.
In context he was trying to criticise the Labour party proposal to introduce voting for EU citizens and 16 year old. Neither of which I agree with either. However, he chose to give an example of gerrymandering failing, which was the voter ID law.
The News Agents have the full clip posted on YouTube."I'd love to have an actual conversation but all I see is 'youve explained nothing' 'you seem unable to understand' blah blah. Just because you don't like what I have to say doesn't mean I'm not saying something. Enjoy your day | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To all those who insisted that this was necessary and not an attempt to manipulate voting… Mr Rees-Mogg said: "Parties that try and gerrymander end up finding their clever scheme comes back to bite them, as dare I say we found by insisting on voter ID for elections. "We found the people who didn't have ID were elderly and they by and large voted Conservative, so we made it hard for our own voters and we upset a system that worked perfectly well." https://news.sky.com/story/jacob-rees-mogg-suggests-requiring-photo-id-to-vote-was-attempt-to-gerrymander-which-came-back-to-bite-tories-12881602 I don't remember anyone round here saying it was necessary. What I do remember though was plenty of people saying this target the less well off, the young, immigrants etc etc. You know, those people who likely wouldn't vote tory. Turns out it was the opposite
Nobody said that it was necessary? Really? Nobody on the thread thought that there was a problem that needed solving?
Interesting perspective.
The Law change accidentally affected the " wrong" people. That's rather the point of what Rees-Mogg said. They failed to achieve what they set out to and, in fact, had the opposite effect.
You understood something different?
I have an interesting perspective? Feel free to prove me wrong.
Isn't it funny that Rees-Mogg has said this and you're all over it. David Davis said the opposite.
Usually, round here, it's said that Rees-Mogg talks out of his arse, obviously, apart from when it suits.
The point I made at the end was that this law change clearly didn't affect the very people that you all said it would.
I don't need to prove what's written in the thread either about their being fraud or the innuendo of "not knowing" if there is widespread fraud.
David Davis was not the Leader of the House of Commons when the act was introduced. He also said that the act was a threat to democracy.
David Davis actually said exactly the same thing as Rees-Mogg just has.
"Voter ID is like a US Republican policy of voter suppression, deliberately trying to undermine the voting capabilities of the disadvantaged and marginalised groups who would overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats."
"The Joint Committee on Human Rights has published a report into the Elections Bill. The committee warned that the introduction of a photo ID requirement may have a discriminatory impact on certain groups who are less likely to hold any form of photo ID, including older people and people with disabilities. This could create barriers to exercising their right to vote."
You are correct, I thought that the Government would have framed the legislation such that they would achieve their goal. However, they were too incompetent too.
Rees-Mogg has said that they failed to do what they had intended too. Disenfranchise those who would be most likely to vote against the Tory party.
What point are you making? You want to "prove" that I was wrong? Is that your only obsession?
The 'innuendo' of not knowing is just a fact, there was no measurable way to know whether people were who the said they were.
From your link:
'David Davis, the veteran Conservative MP, told Sky News that he did not think the voter ID reforms were an attempt to gerrymander.
"But if it were, it could turn out to be a spectacular miscalculation", he said, as "the Conservative Party gets the predominant share of the elderly vote".'
What does that look like David Davis is saying? Maybe I just can't read.
Why do you continually speak of my 'obsession' with you? Why don't we try to discuss the actual article rather than those cheap digs?
Tell me why you suddenly believe Rees-Mogg and not David Davis.
Not knowing is not "a fact". There is data on investigations, prosecutions and convictions for illegal voting. That is extremely low. There remains no problem to fix.
You quoted what Davis said in the Sky article. I also provided this direct quote from Davis:
"Voter ID is like a US Republican policy of voter suppression, deliberately trying to undermine the voting capabilities of the disadvantaged and marginalised groups who would overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats."
You read and understood that too, right?
So Davis agreed with Rees-Mogg before the act passed.
That's what these words mean: "David Davis actually SAID exactly the same thing as Rees-Mogg just has."
Why was the Election Act introduced then? Using up months of Parliamentary time. To fix a problem for which there was "a fact" of there being no evidence to require a change, or an attempt to rig elections in the Conservative party's favour?
Based on the evidence of the last several years the latter is far more believable.
Rees-Mogg was the person responsible for taking the legislation through Parliament as Leader of the House of Commons. As a particularly disingenuous individual I will take the view that he said whatever was necessary to get the legislation passed. Now that it has proven useless and he is no longer in Government, he is vocalising his real opinion to show off in front of a friendly audience.
Why do you think he said what he did?
God you're hard work aren't you.
David Davis didn't 'actually' say, he 'also' said, those words matter. Why would you believe one statement but not another?
I genuinely couldn't care less why he said what he said, maybe he is telling the truth.
What I am interested in though, is why, you in particular, are now holding up Rees-Mogg as a pinnacle of truth? You've always ridiculed everything that comes from the man's mouth.
So I have stated nothing less true than you have.
You are equally "hard work".
I have told you why Rees-Mogg's words now seem to align more with his true beliefs. He is now out of Government and showing off to a audience of like minded supporters.
Davis may have thought that it was bad legislation in his original comment and used the example to warn of what it would end up doing.
He may well be hoping that it is not the cynical attempt at voter manipulation that Rees-Mogg has now confirmed that it was.
Same questions to you about Davis and Rees-Mogg now that I've answered you twice.
The only point that I was making is that Rees-Mogg now states that this was a failed attempt to suppress the votes of those who were not Conservative supporters.
This was what many other posters also says. Those making the case that there was a legitimate reason for the voter ID rules (or that no evidence was adequate) should consider explaining their positions as a consequence of this new information or why it makes no difference.
I didn't say you have said anything untrue, just that I quoted Davis from your link and you chose to reply with 'actually he said', which doesn't tell the whole picture.
And I haven't even spoken about the context in which Rees-Mogg made his statement, or the subsequent clarification.
I replied with additional information explaining what Davis had said in addition to what was in the article that everyone could read, although he wasn't the topic of conversation anyway.
No, you still haven't addressed what I actually wrote about. Were you intending to address Rees-Mogg's comments about the legislation being intended to limit non-Conservative votes as many people on the thread stated?
Why don't we try to discuss the actual topic, eh?
I still can't believe you think you replied with 'additional' information. That's not what happened but no problem.
What is the actual topic? We're gone round so many corners, I can't remember anymore
You struggle to follow many things because you are busy trying to prove a point against me rather than addressing the point at hand.
The topic is voter ID and what you chose to reply to but not address is at the top of this thread. You went around the houses, not me.
How Rees-Mogg's speech reflect on those who claimed that voter ID was required and not an attempt at voter suppression of non-Conservative voter's?
How would you like to reinterpret what he said, if indeed you have any capability of addressing what was written?
All these words and still nothing from you.
Alternatively, just don't and claim a "win" of something.
Why is everything you've said there about me and not the topic?
I thought you wanted to discuss the topic?
I'm bored of you still not addressing the point, so I'm doing what you do and talking about any old crap.
"The topic is voter ID"
"How Rees-Mogg's speech reflect on those who claimed that voter ID was required and not an attempt at voter suppression of non-Conservative voter's?"
Answer, don't answer. 20 odd posts later still unaddressed. You are well aware of that.
I already answered in my first post after yours. I don't remember anyone claiming ID is needed to get rid of voter fraud. I've just read everything back to make sure, I missed maybe one you could argue said it was needed for that reason.
And as has happened, apparently, it actually suppressed elderly Tory voters according to Rees-Mogg.
You can choose to believe him, that's cool, I'm just confused as to why you previously believed Davis and now you're saying he's talking shit.
"It helps to make election fraud less likely."
Reams of speculation that there "might" be lots of voter fraud and all sorts of ways to carry it out.
Many people saying there is no problem getting voter ID and it won't cause a problem.
So, make a significant change to voting anyway because "perhaps".
Did Rees-Mogg say that they tried and failed to gerrymander or not? Did he say that it backfired or not?
Does that mean that the voter ID requirement caused a problem or not?
I've explained my reasoning.
You've explained nothing.
Do you think that voter ID is required?
Why do you think that David and Rees-Mogg have said what they said?
Again, as you still seem unable to address the actual point that I raised:
Where does Rees-Mogg saying that this was an attempt to gerrymander put those people who thought that the introduction of ID was not a problem.
He said very clearly that it was intended to gerrymander but it caused a problem on the "wrong" group of voters for the Conservative party.
In context he was trying to criticise the Labour party proposal to introduce voting for EU citizens and 16 year old. Neither of which I agree with either. However, he chose to give an example of gerrymandering failing, which was the voter ID law.
The News Agents have the full clip posted on YouTube.
I'd love to have an actual conversation but all I see is 'youve explained nothing' 'you seem unable to understand' blah blah.
Just because you don't like what I have to say doesn't mean I'm not saying something.
Enjoy your day "That's how it always ends. You flounce off having contributed nothing. All you have done is question why I would trust Rees-Mogg and something, something David Davis as if that's relevant. You go ahead and look after your ego. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To all those who insisted that this was necessary and not an attempt to manipulate voting… Mr Rees-Mogg said: "Parties that try and gerrymander end up finding their clever scheme comes back to bite them, as dare I say we found by insisting on voter ID for elections. "We found the people who didn't have ID were elderly and they by and large voted Conservative, so we made it hard for our own voters and we upset a system that worked perfectly well." https://news.sky.com/story/jacob-rees-mogg-suggests-requiring-photo-id-to-vote-was-attempt-to-gerrymander-which-came-back-to-bite-tories-12881602 I don't remember anyone round here saying it was necessary. What I do remember though was plenty of people saying this target the less well off, the young, immigrants etc etc. You know, those people who likely wouldn't vote tory. Turns out it was the opposite
Nobody said that it was necessary? Really? Nobody on the thread thought that there was a problem that needed solving?
Interesting perspective.
The Law change accidentally affected the " wrong" people. That's rather the point of what Rees-Mogg said. They failed to achieve what they set out to and, in fact, had the opposite effect.
You understood something different?
I have an interesting perspective? Feel free to prove me wrong.
Isn't it funny that Rees-Mogg has said this and you're all over it. David Davis said the opposite.
Usually, round here, it's said that Rees-Mogg talks out of his arse, obviously, apart from when it suits.
The point I made at the end was that this law change clearly didn't affect the very people that you all said it would.
I don't need to prove what's written in the thread either about their being fraud or the innuendo of "not knowing" if there is widespread fraud.
David Davis was not the Leader of the House of Commons when the act was introduced. He also said that the act was a threat to democracy.
David Davis actually said exactly the same thing as Rees-Mogg just has.
"Voter ID is like a US Republican policy of voter suppression, deliberately trying to undermine the voting capabilities of the disadvantaged and marginalised groups who would overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats."
"The Joint Committee on Human Rights has published a report into the Elections Bill. The committee warned that the introduction of a photo ID requirement may have a discriminatory impact on certain groups who are less likely to hold any form of photo ID, including older people and people with disabilities. This could create barriers to exercising their right to vote."
You are correct, I thought that the Government would have framed the legislation such that they would achieve their goal. However, they were too incompetent too.
Rees-Mogg has said that they failed to do what they had intended too. Disenfranchise those who would be most likely to vote against the Tory party.
What point are you making? You want to "prove" that I was wrong? Is that your only obsession?
The 'innuendo' of not knowing is just a fact, there was no measurable way to know whether people were who the said they were.
From your link:
'David Davis, the veteran Conservative MP, told Sky News that he did not think the voter ID reforms were an attempt to gerrymander.
"But if it were, it could turn out to be a spectacular miscalculation", he said, as "the Conservative Party gets the predominant share of the elderly vote".'
What does that look like David Davis is saying? Maybe I just can't read.
Why do you continually speak of my 'obsession' with you? Why don't we try to discuss the actual article rather than those cheap digs?
Tell me why you suddenly believe Rees-Mogg and not David Davis.
Not knowing is not "a fact". There is data on investigations, prosecutions and convictions for illegal voting. That is extremely low. There remains no problem to fix.
You quoted what Davis said in the Sky article. I also provided this direct quote from Davis:
"Voter ID is like a US Republican policy of voter suppression, deliberately trying to undermine the voting capabilities of the disadvantaged and marginalised groups who would overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats."
You read and understood that too, right?
So Davis agreed with Rees-Mogg before the act passed.
That's what these words mean: "David Davis actually SAID exactly the same thing as Rees-Mogg just has."
Why was the Election Act introduced then? Using up months of Parliamentary time. To fix a problem for which there was "a fact" of there being no evidence to require a change, or an attempt to rig elections in the Conservative party's favour?
Based on the evidence of the last several years the latter is far more believable.
Rees-Mogg was the person responsible for taking the legislation through Parliament as Leader of the House of Commons. As a particularly disingenuous individual I will take the view that he said whatever was necessary to get the legislation passed. Now that it has proven useless and he is no longer in Government, he is vocalising his real opinion to show off in front of a friendly audience.
Why do you think he said what he did?
God you're hard work aren't you.
David Davis didn't 'actually' say, he 'also' said, those words matter. Why would you believe one statement but not another?
I genuinely couldn't care less why he said what he said, maybe he is telling the truth.
What I am interested in though, is why, you in particular, are now holding up Rees-Mogg as a pinnacle of truth? You've always ridiculed everything that comes from the man's mouth.
So I have stated nothing less true than you have.
You are equally "hard work".
I have told you why Rees-Mogg's words now seem to align more with his true beliefs. He is now out of Government and showing off to a audience of like minded supporters.
Davis may have thought that it was bad legislation in his original comment and used the example to warn of what it would end up doing.
He may well be hoping that it is not the cynical attempt at voter manipulation that Rees-Mogg has now confirmed that it was.
Same questions to you about Davis and Rees-Mogg now that I've answered you twice.
The only point that I was making is that Rees-Mogg now states that this was a failed attempt to suppress the votes of those who were not Conservative supporters.
This was what many other posters also says. Those making the case that there was a legitimate reason for the voter ID rules (or that no evidence was adequate) should consider explaining their positions as a consequence of this new information or why it makes no difference.
I didn't say you have said anything untrue, just that I quoted Davis from your link and you chose to reply with 'actually he said', which doesn't tell the whole picture.
And I haven't even spoken about the context in which Rees-Mogg made his statement, or the subsequent clarification.
I replied with additional information explaining what Davis had said in addition to what was in the article that everyone could read, although he wasn't the topic of conversation anyway.
No, you still haven't addressed what I actually wrote about. Were you intending to address Rees-Mogg's comments about the legislation being intended to limit non-Conservative votes as many people on the thread stated?
Why don't we try to discuss the actual topic, eh?
I still can't believe you think you replied with 'additional' information. That's not what happened but no problem.
What is the actual topic? We're gone round so many corners, I can't remember anymore
You struggle to follow many things because you are busy trying to prove a point against me rather than addressing the point at hand.
The topic is voter ID and what you chose to reply to but not address is at the top of this thread. You went around the houses, not me.
How Rees-Mogg's speech reflect on those who claimed that voter ID was required and not an attempt at voter suppression of non-Conservative voter's?
How would you like to reinterpret what he said, if indeed you have any capability of addressing what was written?
All these words and still nothing from you.
Alternatively, just don't and claim a "win" of something.
Why is everything you've said there about me and not the topic?
I thought you wanted to discuss the topic?
I'm bored of you still not addressing the point, so I'm doing what you do and talking about any old crap.
"The topic is voter ID"
"How Rees-Mogg's speech reflect on those who claimed that voter ID was required and not an attempt at voter suppression of non-Conservative voter's?"
Answer, don't answer. 20 odd posts later still unaddressed. You are well aware of that.
I already answered in my first post after yours. I don't remember anyone claiming ID is needed to get rid of voter fraud. I've just read everything back to make sure, I missed maybe one you could argue said it was needed for that reason.
And as has happened, apparently, it actually suppressed elderly Tory voters according to Rees-Mogg.
You can choose to believe him, that's cool, I'm just confused as to why you previously believed Davis and now you're saying he's talking shit.
"It helps to make election fraud less likely."
Reams of speculation that there "might" be lots of voter fraud and all sorts of ways to carry it out.
Many people saying there is no problem getting voter ID and it won't cause a problem.
So, make a significant change to voting anyway because "perhaps".
Did Rees-Mogg say that they tried and failed to gerrymander or not? Did he say that it backfired or not?
Does that mean that the voter ID requirement caused a problem or not?
I've explained my reasoning.
You've explained nothing.
Do you think that voter ID is required?
Why do you think that David and Rees-Mogg have said what they said?
Again, as you still seem unable to address the actual point that I raised:
Where does Rees-Mogg saying that this was an attempt to gerrymander put those people who thought that the introduction of ID was not a problem.
He said very clearly that it was intended to gerrymander but it caused a problem on the "wrong" group of voters for the Conservative party.
In context he was trying to criticise the Labour party proposal to introduce voting for EU citizens and 16 year old. Neither of which I agree with either. However, he chose to give an example of gerrymandering failing, which was the voter ID law.
The News Agents have the full clip posted on YouTube.
I'd love to have an actual conversation but all I see is 'youve explained nothing' 'you seem unable to understand' blah blah.
Just because you don't like what I have to say doesn't mean I'm not saying something.
Enjoy your day
That's how it always ends. You flounce off having contributed nothing.
All you have done is question why I would trust Rees-Mogg and something, something David Davis as if that's relevant.
You go ahead and look after your ego."
No one is flouncing, just refusing to engage further with a one sided conversation.
Learn to listen to the opposition and we can engage. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To all those who insisted that this was necessary and not an attempt to manipulate voting… Mr Rees-Mogg said: "Parties that try and gerrymander end up finding their clever scheme comes back to bite them, as dare I say we found by insisting on voter ID for elections. "We found the people who didn't have ID were elderly and they by and large voted Conservative, so we made it hard for our own voters and we upset a system that worked perfectly well." https://news.sky.com/story/jacob-rees-mogg-suggests-requiring-photo-id-to-vote-was-attempt-to-gerrymander-which-came-back-to-bite-tories-12881602 I don't remember anyone round here saying it was necessary. What I do remember though was plenty of people saying this target the less well off, the young, immigrants etc etc. You know, those people who likely wouldn't vote tory. Turns out it was the opposite
Nobody said that it was necessary? Really? Nobody on the thread thought that there was a problem that needed solving?
Interesting perspective.
The Law change accidentally affected the " wrong" people. That's rather the point of what Rees-Mogg said. They failed to achieve what they set out to and, in fact, had the opposite effect.
You understood something different?
I have an interesting perspective? Feel free to prove me wrong.
Isn't it funny that Rees-Mogg has said this and you're all over it. David Davis said the opposite.
Usually, round here, it's said that Rees-Mogg talks out of his arse, obviously, apart from when it suits.
The point I made at the end was that this law change clearly didn't affect the very people that you all said it would.
I don't need to prove what's written in the thread either about their being fraud or the innuendo of "not knowing" if there is widespread fraud.
David Davis was not the Leader of the House of Commons when the act was introduced. He also said that the act was a threat to democracy.
David Davis actually said exactly the same thing as Rees-Mogg just has.
"Voter ID is like a US Republican policy of voter suppression, deliberately trying to undermine the voting capabilities of the disadvantaged and marginalised groups who would overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats."
"The Joint Committee on Human Rights has published a report into the Elections Bill. The committee warned that the introduction of a photo ID requirement may have a discriminatory impact on certain groups who are less likely to hold any form of photo ID, including older people and people with disabilities. This could create barriers to exercising their right to vote."
You are correct, I thought that the Government would have framed the legislation such that they would achieve their goal. However, they were too incompetent too.
Rees-Mogg has said that they failed to do what they had intended too. Disenfranchise those who would be most likely to vote against the Tory party.
What point are you making? You want to "prove" that I was wrong? Is that your only obsession?
The 'innuendo' of not knowing is just a fact, there was no measurable way to know whether people were who the said they were.
From your link:
'David Davis, the veteran Conservative MP, told Sky News that he did not think the voter ID reforms were an attempt to gerrymander.
"But if it were, it could turn out to be a spectacular miscalculation", he said, as "the Conservative Party gets the predominant share of the elderly vote".'
What does that look like David Davis is saying? Maybe I just can't read.
Why do you continually speak of my 'obsession' with you? Why don't we try to discuss the actual article rather than those cheap digs?
Tell me why you suddenly believe Rees-Mogg and not David Davis.
Not knowing is not "a fact". There is data on investigations, prosecutions and convictions for illegal voting. That is extremely low. There remains no problem to fix.
You quoted what Davis said in the Sky article. I also provided this direct quote from Davis:
"Voter ID is like a US Republican policy of voter suppression, deliberately trying to undermine the voting capabilities of the disadvantaged and marginalised groups who would overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats."
You read and understood that too, right?
So Davis agreed with Rees-Mogg before the act passed.
That's what these words mean: "David Davis actually SAID exactly the same thing as Rees-Mogg just has."
Why was the Election Act introduced then? Using up months of Parliamentary time. To fix a problem for which there was "a fact" of there being no evidence to require a change, or an attempt to rig elections in the Conservative party's favour?
Based on the evidence of the last several years the latter is far more believable.
Rees-Mogg was the person responsible for taking the legislation through Parliament as Leader of the House of Commons. As a particularly disingenuous individual I will take the view that he said whatever was necessary to get the legislation passed. Now that it has proven useless and he is no longer in Government, he is vocalising his real opinion to show off in front of a friendly audience.
Why do you think he said what he did?
God you're hard work aren't you.
David Davis didn't 'actually' say, he 'also' said, those words matter. Why would you believe one statement but not another?
I genuinely couldn't care less why he said what he said, maybe he is telling the truth.
What I am interested in though, is why, you in particular, are now holding up Rees-Mogg as a pinnacle of truth? You've always ridiculed everything that comes from the man's mouth.
So I have stated nothing less true than you have.
You are equally "hard work".
I have told you why Rees-Mogg's words now seem to align more with his true beliefs. He is now out of Government and showing off to a audience of like minded supporters.
Davis may have thought that it was bad legislation in his original comment and used the example to warn of what it would end up doing.
He may well be hoping that it is not the cynical attempt at voter manipulation that Rees-Mogg has now confirmed that it was.
Same questions to you about Davis and Rees-Mogg now that I've answered you twice.
The only point that I was making is that Rees-Mogg now states that this was a failed attempt to suppress the votes of those who were not Conservative supporters.
This was what many other posters also says. Those making the case that there was a legitimate reason for the voter ID rules (or that no evidence was adequate) should consider explaining their positions as a consequence of this new information or why it makes no difference.
I didn't say you have said anything untrue, just that I quoted Davis from your link and you chose to reply with 'actually he said', which doesn't tell the whole picture.
And I haven't even spoken about the context in which Rees-Mogg made his statement, or the subsequent clarification.
I replied with additional information explaining what Davis had said in addition to what was in the article that everyone could read, although he wasn't the topic of conversation anyway.
No, you still haven't addressed what I actually wrote about. Were you intending to address Rees-Mogg's comments about the legislation being intended to limit non-Conservative votes as many people on the thread stated?
Why don't we try to discuss the actual topic, eh?
I still can't believe you think you replied with 'additional' information. That's not what happened but no problem.
What is the actual topic? We're gone round so many corners, I can't remember anymore
You struggle to follow many things because you are busy trying to prove a point against me rather than addressing the point at hand.
The topic is voter ID and what you chose to reply to but not address is at the top of this thread. You went around the houses, not me.
How Rees-Mogg's speech reflect on those who claimed that voter ID was required and not an attempt at voter suppression of non-Conservative voter's?
How would you like to reinterpret what he said, if indeed you have any capability of addressing what was written?
All these words and still nothing from you.
Alternatively, just don't and claim a "win" of something.
Why is everything you've said there about me and not the topic?
I thought you wanted to discuss the topic?
I'm bored of you still not addressing the point, so I'm doing what you do and talking about any old crap.
"The topic is voter ID"
"How Rees-Mogg's speech reflect on those who claimed that voter ID was required and not an attempt at voter suppression of non-Conservative voter's?"
Answer, don't answer. 20 odd posts later still unaddressed. You are well aware of that.
I already answered in my first post after yours. I don't remember anyone claiming ID is needed to get rid of voter fraud. I've just read everything back to make sure, I missed maybe one you could argue said it was needed for that reason.
And as has happened, apparently, it actually suppressed elderly Tory voters according to Rees-Mogg.
You can choose to believe him, that's cool, I'm just confused as to why you previously believed Davis and now you're saying he's talking shit.
"It helps to make election fraud less likely."
Reams of speculation that there "might" be lots of voter fraud and all sorts of ways to carry it out.
Many people saying there is no problem getting voter ID and it won't cause a problem.
So, make a significant change to voting anyway because "perhaps".
Did Rees-Mogg say that they tried and failed to gerrymander or not? Did he say that it backfired or not?
Does that mean that the voter ID requirement caused a problem or not?
I've explained my reasoning.
You've explained nothing.
Do you think that voter ID is required?
Why do you think that David and Rees-Mogg have said what they said?
Again, as you still seem unable to address the actual point that I raised:
Where does Rees-Mogg saying that this was an attempt to gerrymander put those people who thought that the introduction of ID was not a problem.
He said very clearly that it was intended to gerrymander but it caused a problem on the "wrong" group of voters for the Conservative party.
In context he was trying to criticise the Labour party proposal to introduce voting for EU citizens and 16 year old. Neither of which I agree with either. However, he chose to give an example of gerrymandering failing, which was the voter ID law.
The News Agents have the full clip posted on YouTube.
I'd love to have an actual conversation but all I see is 'youve explained nothing' 'you seem unable to understand' blah blah.
Just because you don't like what I have to say doesn't mean I'm not saying something.
Enjoy your day
That's how it always ends. You flounce off having contributed nothing.
All you have done is question why I would trust Rees-Mogg and something, something David Davis as if that's relevant.
You go ahead and look after your ego.
No one is flouncing, just refusing to engage further with a one sided conversation.
Learn to listen to the opposition and we can engage."Except here you still are, massaging your ego but unable to "engage" on topic. Still. What point are you actually making and how have you even started to engage with what Rees-Mogg actually said and how that reflects on those who supported the voter ID law? All you have done is question why Rees-Mogg should be believed. Nothing else. Nothing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To all those who insisted that this was necessary and not an attempt to manipulate voting… Mr Rees-Mogg said: "Parties that try and gerrymander end up finding their clever scheme comes back to bite them, as dare I say we found by insisting on voter ID for elections. "We found the people who didn't have ID were elderly and they by and large voted Conservative, so we made it hard for our own voters and we upset a system that worked perfectly well." https://news.sky.com/story/jacob-rees-mogg-suggests-requiring-photo-id-to-vote-was-attempt-to-gerrymander-which-came-back-to-bite-tories-12881602 I don't remember anyone round here saying it was necessary. What I do remember though was plenty of people saying this target the less well off, the young, immigrants etc etc. You know, those people who likely wouldn't vote tory. Turns out it was the opposite
Nobody said that it was necessary? Really? Nobody on the thread thought that there was a problem that needed solving?
Interesting perspective.
The Law change accidentally affected the " wrong" people. That's rather the point of what Rees-Mogg said. They failed to achieve what they set out to and, in fact, had the opposite effect.
You understood something different?
I have an interesting perspective? Feel free to prove me wrong.
Isn't it funny that Rees-Mogg has said this and you're all over it. David Davis said the opposite.
Usually, round here, it's said that Rees-Mogg talks out of his arse, obviously, apart from when it suits.
The point I made at the end was that this law change clearly didn't affect the very people that you all said it would.
I don't need to prove what's written in the thread either about their being fraud or the innuendo of "not knowing" if there is widespread fraud.
David Davis was not the Leader of the House of Commons when the act was introduced. He also said that the act was a threat to democracy.
David Davis actually said exactly the same thing as Rees-Mogg just has.
"Voter ID is like a US Republican policy of voter suppression, deliberately trying to undermine the voting capabilities of the disadvantaged and marginalised groups who would overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats."
"The Joint Committee on Human Rights has published a report into the Elections Bill. The committee warned that the introduction of a photo ID requirement may have a discriminatory impact on certain groups who are less likely to hold any form of photo ID, including older people and people with disabilities. This could create barriers to exercising their right to vote."
You are correct, I thought that the Government would have framed the legislation such that they would achieve their goal. However, they were too incompetent too.
Rees-Mogg has said that they failed to do what they had intended too. Disenfranchise those who would be most likely to vote against the Tory party.
What point are you making? You want to "prove" that I was wrong? Is that your only obsession?
The 'innuendo' of not knowing is just a fact, there was no measurable way to know whether people were who the said they were.
From your link:
'David Davis, the veteran Conservative MP, told Sky News that he did not think the voter ID reforms were an attempt to gerrymander.
"But if it were, it could turn out to be a spectacular miscalculation", he said, as "the Conservative Party gets the predominant share of the elderly vote".'
What does that look like David Davis is saying? Maybe I just can't read.
Why do you continually speak of my 'obsession' with you? Why don't we try to discuss the actual article rather than those cheap digs?
Tell me why you suddenly believe Rees-Mogg and not David Davis.
Not knowing is not "a fact". There is data on investigations, prosecutions and convictions for illegal voting. That is extremely low. There remains no problem to fix.
You quoted what Davis said in the Sky article. I also provided this direct quote from Davis:
"Voter ID is like a US Republican policy of voter suppression, deliberately trying to undermine the voting capabilities of the disadvantaged and marginalised groups who would overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats."
You read and understood that too, right?
So Davis agreed with Rees-Mogg before the act passed.
That's what these words mean: "David Davis actually SAID exactly the same thing as Rees-Mogg just has."
Why was the Election Act introduced then? Using up months of Parliamentary time. To fix a problem for which there was "a fact" of there being no evidence to require a change, or an attempt to rig elections in the Conservative party's favour?
Based on the evidence of the last several years the latter is far more believable.
Rees-Mogg was the person responsible for taking the legislation through Parliament as Leader of the House of Commons. As a particularly disingenuous individual I will take the view that he said whatever was necessary to get the legislation passed. Now that it has proven useless and he is no longer in Government, he is vocalising his real opinion to show off in front of a friendly audience.
Why do you think he said what he did?
God you're hard work aren't you.
David Davis didn't 'actually' say, he 'also' said, those words matter. Why would you believe one statement but not another?
I genuinely couldn't care less why he said what he said, maybe he is telling the truth.
What I am interested in though, is why, you in particular, are now holding up Rees-Mogg as a pinnacle of truth? You've always ridiculed everything that comes from the man's mouth.
So I have stated nothing less true than you have.
You are equally "hard work".
I have told you why Rees-Mogg's words now seem to align more with his true beliefs. He is now out of Government and showing off to a audience of like minded supporters.
Davis may have thought that it was bad legislation in his original comment and used the example to warn of what it would end up doing.
He may well be hoping that it is not the cynical attempt at voter manipulation that Rees-Mogg has now confirmed that it was.
Same questions to you about Davis and Rees-Mogg now that I've answered you twice.
The only point that I was making is that Rees-Mogg now states that this was a failed attempt to suppress the votes of those who were not Conservative supporters.
This was what many other posters also says. Those making the case that there was a legitimate reason for the voter ID rules (or that no evidence was adequate) should consider explaining their positions as a consequence of this new information or why it makes no difference.
I didn't say you have said anything untrue, just that I quoted Davis from your link and you chose to reply with 'actually he said', which doesn't tell the whole picture.
And I haven't even spoken about the context in which Rees-Mogg made his statement, or the subsequent clarification.
I replied with additional information explaining what Davis had said in addition to what was in the article that everyone could read, although he wasn't the topic of conversation anyway.
No, you still haven't addressed what I actually wrote about. Were you intending to address Rees-Mogg's comments about the legislation being intended to limit non-Conservative votes as many people on the thread stated?
Why don't we try to discuss the actual topic, eh?
I still can't believe you think you replied with 'additional' information. That's not what happened but no problem.
What is the actual topic? We're gone round so many corners, I can't remember anymore
You struggle to follow many things because you are busy trying to prove a point against me rather than addressing the point at hand.
The topic is voter ID and what you chose to reply to but not address is at the top of this thread. You went around the houses, not me.
How Rees-Mogg's speech reflect on those who claimed that voter ID was required and not an attempt at voter suppression of non-Conservative voter's?
How would you like to reinterpret what he said, if indeed you have any capability of addressing what was written?
All these words and still nothing from you.
Alternatively, just don't and claim a "win" of something.
Why is everything you've said there about me and not the topic?
I thought you wanted to discuss the topic?
I'm bored of you still not addressing the point, so I'm doing what you do and talking about any old crap.
"The topic is voter ID"
"How Rees-Mogg's speech reflect on those who claimed that voter ID was required and not an attempt at voter suppression of non-Conservative voter's?"
Answer, don't answer. 20 odd posts later still unaddressed. You are well aware of that.
I already answered in my first post after yours. I don't remember anyone claiming ID is needed to get rid of voter fraud. I've just read everything back to make sure, I missed maybe one you could argue said it was needed for that reason.
And as has happened, apparently, it actually suppressed elderly Tory voters according to Rees-Mogg.
You can choose to believe him, that's cool, I'm just confused as to why you previously believed Davis and now you're saying he's talking shit.
"It helps to make election fraud less likely."
Reams of speculation that there "might" be lots of voter fraud and all sorts of ways to carry it out.
Many people saying there is no problem getting voter ID and it won't cause a problem.
So, make a significant change to voting anyway because "perhaps".
Did Rees-Mogg say that they tried and failed to gerrymander or not? Did he say that it backfired or not?
Does that mean that the voter ID requirement caused a problem or not?
I've explained my reasoning.
You've explained nothing.
Do you think that voter ID is required?
Why do you think that David and Rees-Mogg have said what they said?
Again, as you still seem unable to address the actual point that I raised:
Where does Rees-Mogg saying that this was an attempt to gerrymander put those people who thought that the introduction of ID was not a problem.
He said very clearly that it was intended to gerrymander but it caused a problem on the "wrong" group of voters for the Conservative party.
In context he was trying to criticise the Labour party proposal to introduce voting for EU citizens and 16 year old. Neither of which I agree with either. However, he chose to give an example of gerrymandering failing, which was the voter ID law.
The News Agents have the full clip posted on YouTube.
I'd love to have an actual conversation but all I see is 'youve explained nothing' 'you seem unable to understand' blah blah.
Just because you don't like what I have to say doesn't mean I'm not saying something.
Enjoy your day
That's how it always ends. You flounce off having contributed nothing.
All you have done is question why I would trust Rees-Mogg and something, something David Davis as if that's relevant.
You go ahead and look after your ego.
No one is flouncing, just refusing to engage further with a one sided conversation.
Learn to listen to the opposition and we can engage.
Except here you still are, massaging your ego but unable to "engage" on topic. Still.
What point are you actually making and how have you even started to engage with what Rees-Mogg actually said and how that reflects on those who supported the voter ID law?
All you have done is question why Rees-Mogg should be believed. Nothing else. Nothing."Yes, here I still am. Yes, here you still are, getting personal. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To all those who insisted that this was necessary and not an attempt to manipulate voting… Mr Rees-Mogg said: "Parties that try and gerrymander end up finding their clever scheme comes back to bite them, as dare I say we found by insisting on voter ID for elections. "We found the people who didn't have ID were elderly and they by and large voted Conservative, so we made it hard for our own voters and we upset a system that worked perfectly well." https://news.sky.com/story/jacob-rees-mogg-suggests-requiring-photo-id-to-vote-was-attempt-to-gerrymander-which-came-back-to-bite-tories-12881602 I don't remember anyone round here saying it was necessary. What I do remember though was plenty of people saying this target the less well off, the young, immigrants etc etc. You know, those people who likely wouldn't vote tory. Turns out it was the opposite
Nobody said that it was necessary? Really? Nobody on the thread thought that there was a problem that needed solving?
Interesting perspective.
The Law change accidentally affected the " wrong" people. That's rather the point of what Rees-Mogg said. They failed to achieve what they set out to and, in fact, had the opposite effect.
You understood something different?
I have an interesting perspective? Feel free to prove me wrong.
Isn't it funny that Rees-Mogg has said this and you're all over it. David Davis said the opposite.
Usually, round here, it's said that Rees-Mogg talks out of his arse, obviously, apart from when it suits.
The point I made at the end was that this law change clearly didn't affect the very people that you all said it would.
I don't need to prove what's written in the thread either about their being fraud or the innuendo of "not knowing" if there is widespread fraud.
David Davis was not the Leader of the House of Commons when the act was introduced. He also said that the act was a threat to democracy.
David Davis actually said exactly the same thing as Rees-Mogg just has.
"Voter ID is like a US Republican policy of voter suppression, deliberately trying to undermine the voting capabilities of the disadvantaged and marginalised groups who would overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats."
"The Joint Committee on Human Rights has published a report into the Elections Bill. The committee warned that the introduction of a photo ID requirement may have a discriminatory impact on certain groups who are less likely to hold any form of photo ID, including older people and people with disabilities. This could create barriers to exercising their right to vote."
You are correct, I thought that the Government would have framed the legislation such that they would achieve their goal. However, they were too incompetent too.
Rees-Mogg has said that they failed to do what they had intended too. Disenfranchise those who would be most likely to vote against the Tory party.
What point are you making? You want to "prove" that I was wrong? Is that your only obsession?
The 'innuendo' of not knowing is just a fact, there was no measurable way to know whether people were who the said they were.
From your link:
'David Davis, the veteran Conservative MP, told Sky News that he did not think the voter ID reforms were an attempt to gerrymander.
"But if it were, it could turn out to be a spectacular miscalculation", he said, as "the Conservative Party gets the predominant share of the elderly vote".'
What does that look like David Davis is saying? Maybe I just can't read.
Why do you continually speak of my 'obsession' with you? Why don't we try to discuss the actual article rather than those cheap digs?
Tell me why you suddenly believe Rees-Mogg and not David Davis.
The Johnson backed group conservative democrats don't give a damn about who brought what in, their aim is take back power after ERG is no more. They are smart enough to know that Sunak cannot afford further issues, Sunak knows he can't go forward with this group. The aim of this group is to remove Sunak and take back the leadership, or to hold so much influence Sunak needs them to turn a light on. As I mentioned, let's revisit this, but I have a feeling things will appear to destabilise the Tory party more frequently going forward.
I continue to agree that there is an intention to destabilise the Rishi Sunak.
How does criticism of Johnson's legislation, pushed through by Rees-Mogg himself and backed by the majority of Conservative party MPs help achieve this?
Simple divide and conquer techniques.
He's criticised his side to achieve this?
I think this is a Freudian slip wrapped up in the excitement of playing to his own political audience. Not part of the intentional political plan to maintain the power of the small, bit vocal, right of the pari."Not only did he criticise his own party but himself who pushed the legislation through the party... As a former minister that is water under the bridge for him, so easy to make it Sunak's problem. Mogg's ambition, become a shadow minister | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To all those who insisted that this was necessary and not an attempt to manipulate voting… Mr Rees-Mogg said: "Parties that try and gerrymander end up finding their clever scheme comes back to bite them, as dare I say we found by insisting on voter ID for elections. "We found the people who didn't have ID were elderly and they by and large voted Conservative, so we made it hard for our own voters and we upset a system that worked perfectly well." https://news.sky.com/story/jacob-rees-mogg-suggests-requiring-photo-id-to-vote-was-attempt-to-gerrymander-which-came-back-to-bite-tories-12881602 I don't remember anyone round here saying it was necessary. What I do remember though was plenty of people saying this target the less well off, the young, immigrants etc etc. You know, those people who likely wouldn't vote tory. Turns out it was the opposite
Nobody said that it was necessary? Really? Nobody on the thread thought that there was a problem that needed solving?
Interesting perspective.
The Law change accidentally affected the " wrong" people. That's rather the point of what Rees-Mogg said. They failed to achieve what they set out to and, in fact, had the opposite effect.
You understood something different?
I have an interesting perspective? Feel free to prove me wrong.
Isn't it funny that Rees-Mogg has said this and you're all over it. David Davis said the opposite.
Usually, round here, it's said that Rees-Mogg talks out of his arse, obviously, apart from when it suits.
The point I made at the end was that this law change clearly didn't affect the very people that you all said it would.
I don't need to prove what's written in the thread either about their being fraud or the innuendo of "not knowing" if there is widespread fraud.
David Davis was not the Leader of the House of Commons when the act was introduced. He also said that the act was a threat to democracy.
David Davis actually said exactly the same thing as Rees-Mogg just has.
"Voter ID is like a US Republican policy of voter suppression, deliberately trying to undermine the voting capabilities of the disadvantaged and marginalised groups who would overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats."
"The Joint Committee on Human Rights has published a report into the Elections Bill. The committee warned that the introduction of a photo ID requirement may have a discriminatory impact on certain groups who are less likely to hold any form of photo ID, including older people and people with disabilities. This could create barriers to exercising their right to vote."
You are correct, I thought that the Government would have framed the legislation such that they would achieve their goal. However, they were too incompetent too.
Rees-Mogg has said that they failed to do what they had intended too. Disenfranchise those who would be most likely to vote against the Tory party.
What point are you making? You want to "prove" that I was wrong? Is that your only obsession?
The 'innuendo' of not knowing is just a fact, there was no measurable way to know whether people were who the said they were.
From your link:
'David Davis, the veteran Conservative MP, told Sky News that he did not think the voter ID reforms were an attempt to gerrymander.
"But if it were, it could turn out to be a spectacular miscalculation", he said, as "the Conservative Party gets the predominant share of the elderly vote".'
What does that look like David Davis is saying? Maybe I just can't read.
Why do you continually speak of my 'obsession' with you? Why don't we try to discuss the actual article rather than those cheap digs?
Tell me why you suddenly believe Rees-Mogg and not David Davis.
The Johnson backed group conservative democrats don't give a damn about who brought what in, their aim is take back power after ERG is no more. They are smart enough to know that Sunak cannot afford further issues, Sunak knows he can't go forward with this group. The aim of this group is to remove Sunak and take back the leadership, or to hold so much influence Sunak needs them to turn a light on. As I mentioned, let's revisit this, but I have a feeling things will appear to destabilise the Tory party more frequently going forward.
I continue to agree that there is an intention to destabilise the Rishi Sunak.
How does criticism of Johnson's legislation, pushed through by Rees-Mogg himself and backed by the majority of Conservative party MPs help achieve this?
Simple divide and conquer techniques.
He's criticised his side to achieve this?
I think this is a Freudian slip wrapped up in the excitement of playing to his own political audience. Not part of the intentional political plan to maintain the power of the small, bit vocal, right of the pari.
Not only did he criticise his own party but himself who pushed the legislation through the party...
As a former minister that is water under the bridge for him, so easy to make it Sunak's problem.
Mogg's ambition, become a shadow minister"I still disagree that this is the intent. If you look at The News Agents video of this, the intent was actually to dig at Labour's EU citizen and 16 year old voting policy as gerrymandering. He then used the voter ID as a bad example gerrymandering as it does not necessarily work out as intended. He's still the one that ends up looking like a toad. He could lose his seat rather than be a Shadow minister judging by his local election results. We don't, actually, know how many people were prevented from voting yet or the demographic. You were one of the people who thought it was fine to introduce to fix something a long way from a non-problem. If Rees-Mogg's reasoning for the real introduction of the regulation how do you now view your stance on it, especially if it has prevented people from voting? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To all those who insisted that this was necessary and not an attempt to manipulate voting… Mr Rees-Mogg said: "Parties that try and gerrymander end up finding their clever scheme comes back to bite them, as dare I say we found by insisting on voter ID for elections. "We found the people who didn't have ID were elderly and they by and large voted Conservative, so we made it hard for our own voters and we upset a system that worked perfectly well." https://news.sky.com/story/jacob-rees-mogg-suggests-requiring-photo-id-to-vote-was-attempt-to-gerrymander-which-came-back-to-bite-tories-12881602 I don't remember anyone round here saying it was necessary. What I do remember though was plenty of people saying this target the less well off, the young, immigrants etc etc. You know, those people who likely wouldn't vote tory. Turns out it was the opposite
Nobody said that it was necessary? Really? Nobody on the thread thought that there was a problem that needed solving?
Interesting perspective.
The Law change accidentally affected the " wrong" people. That's rather the point of what Rees-Mogg said. They failed to achieve what they set out to and, in fact, had the opposite effect.
You understood something different?
I have an interesting perspective? Feel free to prove me wrong.
Isn't it funny that Rees-Mogg has said this and you're all over it. David Davis said the opposite.
Usually, round here, it's said that Rees-Mogg talks out of his arse, obviously, apart from when it suits.
The point I made at the end was that this law change clearly didn't affect the very people that you all said it would.
I don't need to prove what's written in the thread either about their being fraud or the innuendo of "not knowing" if there is widespread fraud.
David Davis was not the Leader of the House of Commons when the act was introduced. He also said that the act was a threat to democracy.
David Davis actually said exactly the same thing as Rees-Mogg just has.
"Voter ID is like a US Republican policy of voter suppression, deliberately trying to undermine the voting capabilities of the disadvantaged and marginalised groups who would overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats."
"The Joint Committee on Human Rights has published a report into the Elections Bill. The committee warned that the introduction of a photo ID requirement may have a discriminatory impact on certain groups who are less likely to hold any form of photo ID, including older people and people with disabilities. This could create barriers to exercising their right to vote."
You are correct, I thought that the Government would have framed the legislation such that they would achieve their goal. However, they were too incompetent too.
Rees-Mogg has said that they failed to do what they had intended too. Disenfranchise those who would be most likely to vote against the Tory party.
What point are you making? You want to "prove" that I was wrong? Is that your only obsession?
The 'innuendo' of not knowing is just a fact, there was no measurable way to know whether people were who the said they were.
From your link:
'David Davis, the veteran Conservative MP, told Sky News that he did not think the voter ID reforms were an attempt to gerrymander.
"But if it were, it could turn out to be a spectacular miscalculation", he said, as "the Conservative Party gets the predominant share of the elderly vote".'
What does that look like David Davis is saying? Maybe I just can't read.
Why do you continually speak of my 'obsession' with you? Why don't we try to discuss the actual article rather than those cheap digs?
Tell me why you suddenly believe Rees-Mogg and not David Davis.
The Johnson backed group conservative democrats don't give a damn about who brought what in, their aim is take back power after ERG is no more. They are smart enough to know that Sunak cannot afford further issues, Sunak knows he can't go forward with this group. The aim of this group is to remove Sunak and take back the leadership, or to hold so much influence Sunak needs them to turn a light on. As I mentioned, let's revisit this, but I have a feeling things will appear to destabilise the Tory party more frequently going forward.
I continue to agree that there is an intention to destabilise the Rishi Sunak.
How does criticism of Johnson's legislation, pushed through by Rees-Mogg himself and backed by the majority of Conservative party MPs help achieve this?
Simple divide and conquer techniques.
He's criticised his side to achieve this?
I think this is a Freudian slip wrapped up in the excitement of playing to his own political audience. Not part of the intentional political plan to maintain the power of the small, bit vocal, right of the pari.
Not only did he criticise his own party but himself who pushed the legislation through the party...
As a former minister that is water under the bridge for him, so easy to make it Sunak's problem.
Mogg's ambition, become a shadow minister
I still disagree that this is the intent.
If you look at The News Agents video of this, the intent was actually to dig at Labour's EU citizen and 16 year old voting policy as gerrymandering. He then used the voter ID as a bad example gerrymandering as it does not necessarily work out as intended.
He's still the one that ends up looking like a toad. He could lose his seat rather than be a Shadow minister judging by his local election results.
We don't, actually, know how many people were prevented from voting yet or the demographic.
You were one of the people who thought it was fine to introduce to fix something a long way from a non-problem. If Rees-Mogg's reasoning for the real introduction of the regulation how do you now view your stance on it, especially if it has prevented people from voting?"I still believe we need ID to vote, the resistance to change is not as bad as I thought it would be to be honest. The need to modernise some of our outdated ways of doing things needs to be addressed and we need to not keep putting things off on the chance of upset. Back to Mogg, he is a seasoned pro, even under the most hostile of situations he manages to keep calm and collected. He knew what he was doing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To all those who insisted that this was necessary and not an attempt to manipulate voting… Mr Rees-Mogg said: "Parties that try and gerrymander end up finding their clever scheme comes back to bite them, as dare I say we found by insisting on voter ID for elections. "We found the people who didn't have ID were elderly and they by and large voted Conservative, so we made it hard for our own voters and we upset a system that worked perfectly well." https://news.sky.com/story/jacob-rees-mogg-suggests-requiring-photo-id-to-vote-was-attempt-to-gerrymander-which-came-back-to-bite-tories-12881602 I don't remember anyone round here saying it was necessary. What I do remember though was plenty of people saying this target the less well off, the young, immigrants etc etc. You know, those people who likely wouldn't vote tory. Turns out it was the opposite
Nobody said that it was necessary? Really? Nobody on the thread thought that there was a problem that needed solving?
Interesting perspective.
The Law change accidentally affected the " wrong" people. That's rather the point of what Rees-Mogg said. They failed to achieve what they set out to and, in fact, had the opposite effect.
You understood something different?
I have an interesting perspective? Feel free to prove me wrong.
Isn't it funny that Rees-Mogg has said this and you're all over it. David Davis said the opposite.
Usually, round here, it's said that Rees-Mogg talks out of his arse, obviously, apart from when it suits.
The point I made at the end was that this law change clearly didn't affect the very people that you all said it would.
I don't need to prove what's written in the thread either about their being fraud or the innuendo of "not knowing" if there is widespread fraud.
David Davis was not the Leader of the House of Commons when the act was introduced. He also said that the act was a threat to democracy.
David Davis actually said exactly the same thing as Rees-Mogg just has.
"Voter ID is like a US Republican policy of voter suppression, deliberately trying to undermine the voting capabilities of the disadvantaged and marginalised groups who would overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats."
"The Joint Committee on Human Rights has published a report into the Elections Bill. The committee warned that the introduction of a photo ID requirement may have a discriminatory impact on certain groups who are less likely to hold any form of photo ID, including older people and people with disabilities. This could create barriers to exercising their right to vote."
You are correct, I thought that the Government would have framed the legislation such that they would achieve their goal. However, they were too incompetent too.
Rees-Mogg has said that they failed to do what they had intended too. Disenfranchise those who would be most likely to vote against the Tory party.
What point are you making? You want to "prove" that I was wrong? Is that your only obsession?
The 'innuendo' of not knowing is just a fact, there was no measurable way to know whether people were who the said they were.
From your link:
'David Davis, the veteran Conservative MP, told Sky News that he did not think the voter ID reforms were an attempt to gerrymander.
"But if it were, it could turn out to be a spectacular miscalculation", he said, as "the Conservative Party gets the predominant share of the elderly vote".'
What does that look like David Davis is saying? Maybe I just can't read.
Why do you continually speak of my 'obsession' with you? Why don't we try to discuss the actual article rather than those cheap digs?
Tell me why you suddenly believe Rees-Mogg and not David Davis.
The Johnson backed group conservative democrats don't give a damn about who brought what in, their aim is take back power after ERG is no more. They are smart enough to know that Sunak cannot afford further issues, Sunak knows he can't go forward with this group. The aim of this group is to remove Sunak and take back the leadership, or to hold so much influence Sunak needs them to turn a light on. As I mentioned, let's revisit this, but I have a feeling things will appear to destabilise the Tory party more frequently going forward.
I continue to agree that there is an intention to destabilise the Rishi Sunak.
How does criticism of Johnson's legislation, pushed through by Rees-Mogg himself and backed by the majority of Conservative party MPs help achieve this?
Simple divide and conquer techniques.
He's criticised his side to achieve this?
I think this is a Freudian slip wrapped up in the excitement of playing to his own political audience. Not part of the intentional political plan to maintain the power of the small, bit vocal, right of the pari.
Not only did he criticise his own party but himself who pushed the legislation through the party...
As a former minister that is water under the bridge for him, so easy to make it Sunak's problem.
Mogg's ambition, become a shadow minister
I still disagree that this is the intent.
If you look at The News Agents video of this, the intent was actually to dig at Labour's EU citizen and 16 year old voting policy as gerrymandering. He then used the voter ID as a bad example gerrymandering as it does not necessarily work out as intended.
He's still the one that ends up looking like a toad. He could lose his seat rather than be a Shadow minister judging by his local election results.
We don't, actually, know how many people were prevented from voting yet or the demographic.
You were one of the people who thought it was fine to introduce to fix something a long way from a non-problem. If Rees-Mogg's reasoning for the real introduction of the regulation how do you now view your stance on it, especially if it has prevented people from voting?
I still believe we need ID to vote, the resistance to change is not as bad as I thought it would be to be honest.
The need to modernise some of our outdated ways of doing things needs to be addressed and we need to not keep putting things off on the chance of upset.
Back to Mogg, he is a seasoned pro, even under the most hostile of situations he manages to keep calm and collected. He knew what he was doing."Why do we need voter ID if there is no evidence that it is required? Should all changes to the electoral process or decisions in general be based on not having data? In fact, based on doing the opposite of what data exists? He wasn't under any pressure whatsoever. He was infront of a friendly audience. He said that the ID rule was brought in for gerrymandering. That was the intent. You appear to have enthusiastically supported a policy brought in to bias the voting process. What are your thoughts on that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To all those who insisted that this was necessary and not an attempt to manipulate voting… Mr Rees-Mogg said: "Parties that try and gerrymander end up finding their clever scheme comes back to bite them, as dare I say we found by insisting on voter ID for elections. "We found the people who didn't have ID were elderly and they by and large voted Conservative, so we made it hard for our own voters and we upset a system that worked perfectly well." https://news.sky.com/story/jacob-rees-mogg-suggests-requiring-photo-id-to-vote-was-attempt-to-gerrymander-which-came-back-to-bite-tories-12881602 I don't remember anyone round here saying it was necessary. What I do remember though was plenty of people saying this target the less well off, the young, immigrants etc etc. You know, those people who likely wouldn't vote tory. Turns out it was the opposite
Nobody said that it was necessary? Really? Nobody on the thread thought that there was a problem that needed solving?
Interesting perspective.
The Law change accidentally affected the " wrong" people. That's rather the point of what Rees-Mogg said. They failed to achieve what they set out to and, in fact, had the opposite effect.
You understood something different?
I have an interesting perspective? Feel free to prove me wrong.
Isn't it funny that Rees-Mogg has said this and you're all over it. David Davis said the opposite.
Usually, round here, it's said that Rees-Mogg talks out of his arse, obviously, apart from when it suits.
The point I made at the end was that this law change clearly didn't affect the very people that you all said it would.
I don't need to prove what's written in the thread either about their being fraud or the innuendo of "not knowing" if there is widespread fraud.
David Davis was not the Leader of the House of Commons when the act was introduced. He also said that the act was a threat to democracy.
David Davis actually said exactly the same thing as Rees-Mogg just has.
"Voter ID is like a US Republican policy of voter suppression, deliberately trying to undermine the voting capabilities of the disadvantaged and marginalised groups who would overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats."
"The Joint Committee on Human Rights has published a report into the Elections Bill. The committee warned that the introduction of a photo ID requirement may have a discriminatory impact on certain groups who are less likely to hold any form of photo ID, including older people and people with disabilities. This could create barriers to exercising their right to vote."
You are correct, I thought that the Government would have framed the legislation such that they would achieve their goal. However, they were too incompetent too.
Rees-Mogg has said that they failed to do what they had intended too. Disenfranchise those who would be most likely to vote against the Tory party.
What point are you making? You want to "prove" that I was wrong? Is that your only obsession?
The 'innuendo' of not knowing is just a fact, there was no measurable way to know whether people were who the said they were.
From your link:
'David Davis, the veteran Conservative MP, told Sky News that he did not think the voter ID reforms were an attempt to gerrymander.
"But if it were, it could turn out to be a spectacular miscalculation", he said, as "the Conservative Party gets the predominant share of the elderly vote".'
What does that look like David Davis is saying? Maybe I just can't read.
Why do you continually speak of my 'obsession' with you? Why don't we try to discuss the actual article rather than those cheap digs?
Tell me why you suddenly believe Rees-Mogg and not David Davis.
The Johnson backed group conservative democrats don't give a damn about who brought what in, their aim is take back power after ERG is no more. They are smart enough to know that Sunak cannot afford further issues, Sunak knows he can't go forward with this group. The aim of this group is to remove Sunak and take back the leadership, or to hold so much influence Sunak needs them to turn a light on. As I mentioned, let's revisit this, but I have a feeling things will appear to destabilise the Tory party more frequently going forward.
I continue to agree that there is an intention to destabilise the Rishi Sunak.
How does criticism of Johnson's legislation, pushed through by Rees-Mogg himself and backed by the majority of Conservative party MPs help achieve this?
Simple divide and conquer techniques.
He's criticised his side to achieve this?
I think this is a Freudian slip wrapped up in the excitement of playing to his own political audience. Not part of the intentional political plan to maintain the power of the small, bit vocal, right of the pari.
Not only did he criticise his own party but himself who pushed the legislation through the party...
As a former minister that is water under the bridge for him, so easy to make it Sunak's problem.
Mogg's ambition, become a shadow minister
I still disagree that this is the intent.
If you look at The News Agents video of this, the intent was actually to dig at Labour's EU citizen and 16 year old voting policy as gerrymandering. He then used the voter ID as a bad example gerrymandering as it does not necessarily work out as intended.
He's still the one that ends up looking like a toad. He could lose his seat rather than be a Shadow minister judging by his local election results.
We don't, actually, know how many people were prevented from voting yet or the demographic.
You were one of the people who thought it was fine to introduce to fix something a long way from a non-problem. If Rees-Mogg's reasoning for the real introduction of the regulation how do you now view your stance on it, especially if it has prevented people from voting?
I still believe we need ID to vote, the resistance to change is not as bad as I thought it would be to be honest.
The need to modernise some of our outdated ways of doing things needs to be addressed and we need to not keep putting things off on the chance of upset.
Back to Mogg, he is a seasoned pro, even under the most hostile of situations he manages to keep calm and collected. He knew what he was doing.
Why do we need voter ID if there is no evidence that it is required?
Should all changes to the electoral process or decisions in general be based on not having data? In fact, based on doing the opposite of what data exists?
He wasn't under any pressure whatsoever. He was infront of a friendly audience.
He said that the ID rule was brought in for gerrymandering. That was the intent. You appear to have enthusiastically supported a policy brought in to bias the voting process. What are your thoughts on that?"We have moved from, typed passwords with no encryption, to passwords that need to X characters long, special characters and face ID. Biometric passports, text message and email confirmations, proof of right to work in the UK. All Incremental changes and I see no reason why in the 21st century we are not moving forward with adding voter ID to the list. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To all those who insisted that this was necessary and not an attempt to manipulate voting… Mr Rees-Mogg said: "Parties that try and gerrymander end up finding their clever scheme comes back to bite them, as dare I say we found by insisting on voter ID for elections. "We found the people who didn't have ID were elderly and they by and large voted Conservative, so we made it hard for our own voters and we upset a system that worked perfectly well." https://news.sky.com/story/jacob-rees-mogg-suggests-requiring-photo-id-to-vote-was-attempt-to-gerrymander-which-came-back-to-bite-tories-12881602 I don't remember anyone round here saying it was necessary. What I do remember though was plenty of people saying this target the less well off, the young, immigrants etc etc. You know, those people who likely wouldn't vote tory. Turns out it was the opposite
Nobody said that it was necessary? Really? Nobody on the thread thought that there was a problem that needed solving?
Interesting perspective.
The Law change accidentally affected the " wrong" people. That's rather the point of what Rees-Mogg said. They failed to achieve what they set out to and, in fact, had the opposite effect.
You understood something different?
I have an interesting perspective? Feel free to prove me wrong.
Isn't it funny that Rees-Mogg has said this and you're all over it. David Davis said the opposite.
Usually, round here, it's said that Rees-Mogg talks out of his arse, obviously, apart from when it suits.
The point I made at the end was that this law change clearly didn't affect the very people that you all said it would.
I don't need to prove what's written in the thread either about their being fraud or the innuendo of "not knowing" if there is widespread fraud.
David Davis was not the Leader of the House of Commons when the act was introduced. He also said that the act was a threat to democracy.
David Davis actually said exactly the same thing as Rees-Mogg just has.
"Voter ID is like a US Republican policy of voter suppression, deliberately trying to undermine the voting capabilities of the disadvantaged and marginalised groups who would overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats."
"The Joint Committee on Human Rights has published a report into the Elections Bill. The committee warned that the introduction of a photo ID requirement may have a discriminatory impact on certain groups who are less likely to hold any form of photo ID, including older people and people with disabilities. This could create barriers to exercising their right to vote."
You are correct, I thought that the Government would have framed the legislation such that they would achieve their goal. However, they were too incompetent too.
Rees-Mogg has said that they failed to do what they had intended too. Disenfranchise those who would be most likely to vote against the Tory party.
What point are you making? You want to "prove" that I was wrong? Is that your only obsession?
The 'innuendo' of not knowing is just a fact, there was no measurable way to know whether people were who the said they were.
From your link:
'David Davis, the veteran Conservative MP, told Sky News that he did not think the voter ID reforms were an attempt to gerrymander.
"But if it were, it could turn out to be a spectacular miscalculation", he said, as "the Conservative Party gets the predominant share of the elderly vote".'
What does that look like David Davis is saying? Maybe I just can't read.
Why do you continually speak of my 'obsession' with you? Why don't we try to discuss the actual article rather than those cheap digs?
Tell me why you suddenly believe Rees-Mogg and not David Davis.
The Johnson backed group conservative democrats don't give a damn about who brought what in, their aim is take back power after ERG is no more. They are smart enough to know that Sunak cannot afford further issues, Sunak knows he can't go forward with this group. The aim of this group is to remove Sunak and take back the leadership, or to hold so much influence Sunak needs them to turn a light on. As I mentioned, let's revisit this, but I have a feeling things will appear to destabilise the Tory party more frequently going forward.
I continue to agree that there is an intention to destabilise the Rishi Sunak.
How does criticism of Johnson's legislation, pushed through by Rees-Mogg himself and backed by the majority of Conservative party MPs help achieve this?
Simple divide and conquer techniques.
He's criticised his side to achieve this?
I think this is a Freudian slip wrapped up in the excitement of playing to his own political audience. Not part of the intentional political plan to maintain the power of the small, bit vocal, right of the pari.
Not only did he criticise his own party but himself who pushed the legislation through the party...
As a former minister that is water under the bridge for him, so easy to make it Sunak's problem.
Mogg's ambition, become a shadow minister
I still disagree that this is the intent.
If you look at The News Agents video of this, the intent was actually to dig at Labour's EU citizen and 16 year old voting policy as gerrymandering. He then used the voter ID as a bad example gerrymandering as it does not necessarily work out as intended.
He's still the one that ends up looking like a toad. He could lose his seat rather than be a Shadow minister judging by his local election results.
We don't, actually, know how many people were prevented from voting yet or the demographic.
You were one of the people who thought it was fine to introduce to fix something a long way from a non-problem. If Rees-Mogg's reasoning for the real introduction of the regulation how do you now view your stance on it, especially if it has prevented people from voting?
I still believe we need ID to vote, the resistance to change is not as bad as I thought it would be to be honest.
The need to modernise some of our outdated ways of doing things needs to be addressed and we need to not keep putting things off on the chance of upset.
Back to Mogg, he is a seasoned pro, even under the most hostile of situations he manages to keep calm and collected. He knew what he was doing.
Why do we need voter ID if there is no evidence that it is required?
Should all changes to the electoral process or decisions in general be based on not having data? In fact, based on doing the opposite of what data exists?
He wasn't under any pressure whatsoever. He was infront of a friendly audience.
He said that the ID rule was brought in for gerrymandering. That was the intent. You appear to have enthusiastically supported a policy brought in to bias the voting process. What are your thoughts on that?
We have moved from, typed passwords with no encryption, to passwords that need to X characters long, special characters and face ID. Biometric passports, text message and email confirmations, proof of right to work in the UK. All Incremental changes and I see no reason why in the 21st century we are not moving forward with adding voter ID to the list."Should we make changes in contradiction to the available evidence or without evidence as a matter of course? If not, why is voter ID the exception? What are your thoughts on supporting a policy that was, apparently, intended to suppress the votes of those not voting for the party who created the law? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To all those who insisted that this was necessary and not an attempt to manipulate voting… Mr Rees-Mogg said: "Parties that try and gerrymander end up finding their clever scheme comes back to bite them, as dare I say we found by insisting on voter ID for elections. "We found the people who didn't have ID were elderly and they by and large voted Conservative, so we made it hard for our own voters and we upset a system that worked perfectly well." https://news.sky.com/story/jacob-rees-mogg-suggests-requiring-photo-id-to-vote-was-attempt-to-gerrymander-which-came-back-to-bite-tories-12881602 I don't remember anyone round here saying it was necessary. What I do remember though was plenty of people saying this target the less well off, the young, immigrants etc etc. You know, those people who likely wouldn't vote tory. Turns out it was the opposite
Nobody said that it was necessary? Really? Nobody on the thread thought that there was a problem that needed solving?
Interesting perspective.
The Law change accidentally affected the " wrong" people. That's rather the point of what Rees-Mogg said. They failed to achieve what they set out to and, in fact, had the opposite effect.
You understood something different?
I have an interesting perspective? Feel free to prove me wrong.
Isn't it funny that Rees-Mogg has said this and you're all over it. David Davis said the opposite.
Usually, round here, it's said that Rees-Mogg talks out of his arse, obviously, apart from when it suits.
The point I made at the end was that this law change clearly didn't affect the very people that you all said it would.
I don't need to prove what's written in the thread either about their being fraud or the innuendo of "not knowing" if there is widespread fraud.
David Davis was not the Leader of the House of Commons when the act was introduced. He also said that the act was a threat to democracy.
David Davis actually said exactly the same thing as Rees-Mogg just has.
"Voter ID is like a US Republican policy of voter suppression, deliberately trying to undermine the voting capabilities of the disadvantaged and marginalised groups who would overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats."
"The Joint Committee on Human Rights has published a report into the Elections Bill. The committee warned that the introduction of a photo ID requirement may have a discriminatory impact on certain groups who are less likely to hold any form of photo ID, including older people and people with disabilities. This could create barriers to exercising their right to vote."
You are correct, I thought that the Government would have framed the legislation such that they would achieve their goal. However, they were too incompetent too.
Rees-Mogg has said that they failed to do what they had intended too. Disenfranchise those who would be most likely to vote against the Tory party.
What point are you making? You want to "prove" that I was wrong? Is that your only obsession?
The 'innuendo' of not knowing is just a fact, there was no measurable way to know whether people were who the said they were.
From your link:
'David Davis, the veteran Conservative MP, told Sky News that he did not think the voter ID reforms were an attempt to gerrymander.
"But if it were, it could turn out to be a spectacular miscalculation", he said, as "the Conservative Party gets the predominant share of the elderly vote".'
What does that look like David Davis is saying? Maybe I just can't read.
Why do you continually speak of my 'obsession' with you? Why don't we try to discuss the actual article rather than those cheap digs?
Tell me why you suddenly believe Rees-Mogg and not David Davis.
The Johnson backed group conservative democrats don't give a damn about who brought what in, their aim is take back power after ERG is no more. They are smart enough to know that Sunak cannot afford further issues, Sunak knows he can't go forward with this group. The aim of this group is to remove Sunak and take back the leadership, or to hold so much influence Sunak needs them to turn a light on. As I mentioned, let's revisit this, but I have a feeling things will appear to destabilise the Tory party more frequently going forward.
I continue to agree that there is an intention to destabilise the Rishi Sunak.
How does criticism of Johnson's legislation, pushed through by Rees-Mogg himself and backed by the majority of Conservative party MPs help achieve this?
Simple divide and conquer techniques.
He's criticised his side to achieve this?
I think this is a Freudian slip wrapped up in the excitement of playing to his own political audience. Not part of the intentional political plan to maintain the power of the small, bit vocal, right of the pari.
Not only did he criticise his own party but himself who pushed the legislation through the party...
As a former minister that is water under the bridge for him, so easy to make it Sunak's problem.
Mogg's ambition, become a shadow minister
I still disagree that this is the intent.
If you look at The News Agents video of this, the intent was actually to dig at Labour's EU citizen and 16 year old voting policy as gerrymandering. He then used the voter ID as a bad example gerrymandering as it does not necessarily work out as intended.
He's still the one that ends up looking like a toad. He could lose his seat rather than be a Shadow minister judging by his local election results.
We don't, actually, know how many people were prevented from voting yet or the demographic.
You were one of the people who thought it was fine to introduce to fix something a long way from a non-problem. If Rees-Mogg's reasoning for the real introduction of the regulation how do you now view your stance on it, especially if it has prevented people from voting?
I still believe we need ID to vote, the resistance to change is not as bad as I thought it would be to be honest.
The need to modernise some of our outdated ways of doing things needs to be addressed and we need to not keep putting things off on the chance of upset.
Back to Mogg, he is a seasoned pro, even under the most hostile of situations he manages to keep calm and collected. He knew what he was doing.
Why do we need voter ID if there is no evidence that it is required?
Should all changes to the electoral process or decisions in general be based on not having data? In fact, based on doing the opposite of what data exists?
He wasn't under any pressure whatsoever. He was infront of a friendly audience.
He said that the ID rule was brought in for gerrymandering. That was the intent. You appear to have enthusiastically supported a policy brought in to bias the voting process. What are your thoughts on that?
We have moved from, typed passwords with no encryption, to passwords that need to X characters long, special characters and face ID. Biometric passports, text message and email confirmations, proof of right to work in the UK. All Incremental changes and I see no reason why in the 21st century we are not moving forward with adding voter ID to the list.
Should we make changes in contradiction to the available evidence or without evidence as a matter of course?
If not, why is voter ID the exception?
What are your thoughts on supporting a policy that was, apparently, intended to suppress the votes of those not voting for the party who created the law? "As I have said many times, I do not believe Mogg said that by accident and I'm rather surprised he has pulled the wool over your eyes, fascinating. Back to the Voter ID, simple progress, moving actions and processes into the 21st century. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To all those who insisted that this was necessary and not an attempt to manipulate voting… Mr Rees-Mogg said: "Parties that try and gerrymander end up finding their clever scheme comes back to bite them, as dare I say we found by insisting on voter ID for elections. "We found the people who didn't have ID were elderly and they by and large voted Conservative, so we made it hard for our own voters and we upset a system that worked perfectly well." https://news.sky.com/story/jacob-rees-mogg-suggests-requiring-photo-id-to-vote-was-attempt-to-gerrymander-which-came-back-to-bite-tories-12881602 I don't remember anyone round here saying it was necessary. What I do remember though was plenty of people saying this target the less well off, the young, immigrants etc etc. You know, those people who likely wouldn't vote tory. Turns out it was the opposite
Nobody said that it was necessary? Really? Nobody on the thread thought that there was a problem that needed solving?
Interesting perspective.
The Law change accidentally affected the " wrong" people. That's rather the point of what Rees-Mogg said. They failed to achieve what they set out to and, in fact, had the opposite effect.
You understood something different?
I have an interesting perspective? Feel free to prove me wrong.
Isn't it funny that Rees-Mogg has said this and you're all over it. David Davis said the opposite.
Usually, round here, it's said that Rees-Mogg talks out of his arse, obviously, apart from when it suits.
The point I made at the end was that this law change clearly didn't affect the very people that you all said it would.
I don't need to prove what's written in the thread either about their being fraud or the innuendo of "not knowing" if there is widespread fraud.
David Davis was not the Leader of the House of Commons when the act was introduced. He also said that the act was a threat to democracy.
David Davis actually said exactly the same thing as Rees-Mogg just has.
"Voter ID is like a US Republican policy of voter suppression, deliberately trying to undermine the voting capabilities of the disadvantaged and marginalised groups who would overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats."
"The Joint Committee on Human Rights has published a report into the Elections Bill. The committee warned that the introduction of a photo ID requirement may have a discriminatory impact on certain groups who are less likely to hold any form of photo ID, including older people and people with disabilities. This could create barriers to exercising their right to vote."
You are correct, I thought that the Government would have framed the legislation such that they would achieve their goal. However, they were too incompetent too.
Rees-Mogg has said that they failed to do what they had intended too. Disenfranchise those who would be most likely to vote against the Tory party.
What point are you making? You want to "prove" that I was wrong? Is that your only obsession?
The 'innuendo' of not knowing is just a fact, there was no measurable way to know whether people were who the said they were.
From your link:
'David Davis, the veteran Conservative MP, told Sky News that he did not think the voter ID reforms were an attempt to gerrymander.
"But if it were, it could turn out to be a spectacular miscalculation", he said, as "the Conservative Party gets the predominant share of the elderly vote".'
What does that look like David Davis is saying? Maybe I just can't read.
Why do you continually speak of my 'obsession' with you? Why don't we try to discuss the actual article rather than those cheap digs?
Tell me why you suddenly believe Rees-Mogg and not David Davis.
The Johnson backed group conservative democrats don't give a damn about who brought what in, their aim is take back power after ERG is no more. They are smart enough to know that Sunak cannot afford further issues, Sunak knows he can't go forward with this group. The aim of this group is to remove Sunak and take back the leadership, or to hold so much influence Sunak needs them to turn a light on. As I mentioned, let's revisit this, but I have a feeling things will appear to destabilise the Tory party more frequently going forward.
I continue to agree that there is an intention to destabilise the Rishi Sunak.
How does criticism of Johnson's legislation, pushed through by Rees-Mogg himself and backed by the majority of Conservative party MPs help achieve this?
Simple divide and conquer techniques.
He's criticised his side to achieve this?
I think this is a Freudian slip wrapped up in the excitement of playing to his own political audience. Not part of the intentional political plan to maintain the power of the small, bit vocal, right of the pari.
Not only did he criticise his own party but himself who pushed the legislation through the party...
As a former minister that is water under the bridge for him, so easy to make it Sunak's problem.
Mogg's ambition, become a shadow minister
I still disagree that this is the intent.
If you look at The News Agents video of this, the intent was actually to dig at Labour's EU citizen and 16 year old voting policy as gerrymandering. He then used the voter ID as a bad example gerrymandering as it does not necessarily work out as intended.
He's still the one that ends up looking like a toad. He could lose his seat rather than be a Shadow minister judging by his local election results.
We don't, actually, know how many people were prevented from voting yet or the demographic.
You were one of the people who thought it was fine to introduce to fix something a long way from a non-problem. If Rees-Mogg's reasoning for the real introduction of the regulation how do you now view your stance on it, especially if it has prevented people from voting?
I still believe we need ID to vote, the resistance to change is not as bad as I thought it would be to be honest.
The need to modernise some of our outdated ways of doing things needs to be addressed and we need to not keep putting things off on the chance of upset.
Back to Mogg, he is a seasoned pro, even under the most hostile of situations he manages to keep calm and collected. He knew what he was doing.
Why do we need voter ID if there is no evidence that it is required?
Should all changes to the electoral process or decisions in general be based on not having data? In fact, based on doing the opposite of what data exists?
He wasn't under any pressure whatsoever. He was infront of a friendly audience.
He said that the ID rule was brought in for gerrymandering. That was the intent. You appear to have enthusiastically supported a policy brought in to bias the voting process. What are your thoughts on that?
We have moved from, typed passwords with no encryption, to passwords that need to X characters long, special characters and face ID. Biometric passports, text message and email confirmations, proof of right to work in the UK. All Incremental changes and I see no reason why in the 21st century we are not moving forward with adding voter ID to the list.
Should we make changes in contradiction to the available evidence or without evidence as a matter of course?
If not, why is voter ID the exception?
What are your thoughts on supporting a policy that was, apparently, intended to suppress the votes of those not voting for the party who created the law?
As I have said many times, I do not believe Mogg said that by accident and I'm rather surprised he has pulled the wool over your eyes, fascinating.
Back to the Voter ID, simple progress, moving actions and processes into the 21st century. "Your convoluted logic to claim that in criticising himself, Boris Johnson and the Conservative party for electoral corruption to attack Sunak remains incoherent. Rees-Mogg, the man who took the legislation through Parliament, said that it was to gerrymander. There was no evidence before the change that there was any significant level of voter fraud that voter ID would solve. You supported it. Voter ID, a solution without a problem. Again, why is it a good idea to "make progress" to change something for which there is no evidence that needs change? Can you answer that fundamental question? Is it a good idea to change laws based on "suspicions"? Should we have more of this? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To all those who insisted that this was necessary and not an attempt to manipulate voting… Mr Rees-Mogg said: "Parties that try and gerrymander end up finding their clever scheme comes back to bite them, as dare I say we found by insisting on voter ID for elections. "We found the people who didn't have ID were elderly and they by and large voted Conservative, so we made it hard for our own voters and we upset a system that worked perfectly well." https://news.sky.com/story/jacob-rees-mogg-suggests-requiring-photo-id-to-vote-was-attempt-to-gerrymander-which-came-back-to-bite-tories-12881602 I don't remember anyone round here saying it was necessary. What I do remember though was plenty of people saying this target the less well off, the young, immigrants etc etc. You know, those people who likely wouldn't vote tory. Turns out it was the opposite
Nobody said that it was necessary? Really? Nobody on the thread thought that there was a problem that needed solving?
Interesting perspective.
The Law change accidentally affected the " wrong" people. That's rather the point of what Rees-Mogg said. They failed to achieve what they set out to and, in fact, had the opposite effect.
You understood something different?
I have an interesting perspective? Feel free to prove me wrong.
Isn't it funny that Rees-Mogg has said this and you're all over it. David Davis said the opposite.
Usually, round here, it's said that Rees-Mogg talks out of his arse, obviously, apart from when it suits.
The point I made at the end was that this law change clearly didn't affect the very people that you all said it would.
I don't need to prove what's written in the thread either about their being fraud or the innuendo of "not knowing" if there is widespread fraud.
David Davis was not the Leader of the House of Commons when the act was introduced. He also said that the act was a threat to democracy.
David Davis actually said exactly the same thing as Rees-Mogg just has.
"Voter ID is like a US Republican policy of voter suppression, deliberately trying to undermine the voting capabilities of the disadvantaged and marginalised groups who would overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats."
"The Joint Committee on Human Rights has published a report into the Elections Bill. The committee warned that the introduction of a photo ID requirement may have a discriminatory impact on certain groups who are less likely to hold any form of photo ID, including older people and people with disabilities. This could create barriers to exercising their right to vote."
You are correct, I thought that the Government would have framed the legislation such that they would achieve their goal. However, they were too incompetent too.
Rees-Mogg has said that they failed to do what they had intended too. Disenfranchise those who would be most likely to vote against the Tory party.
What point are you making? You want to "prove" that I was wrong? Is that your only obsession?
The 'innuendo' of not knowing is just a fact, there was no measurable way to know whether people were who the said they were.
From your link:
'David Davis, the veteran Conservative MP, told Sky News that he did not think the voter ID reforms were an attempt to gerrymander.
"But if it were, it could turn out to be a spectacular miscalculation", he said, as "the Conservative Party gets the predominant share of the elderly vote".'
What does that look like David Davis is saying? Maybe I just can't read.
Why do you continually speak of my 'obsession' with you? Why don't we try to discuss the actual article rather than those cheap digs?
Tell me why you suddenly believe Rees-Mogg and not David Davis.
The Johnson backed group conservative democrats don't give a damn about who brought what in, their aim is take back power after ERG is no more. They are smart enough to know that Sunak cannot afford further issues, Sunak knows he can't go forward with this group. The aim of this group is to remove Sunak and take back the leadership, or to hold so much influence Sunak needs them to turn a light on. As I mentioned, let's revisit this, but I have a feeling things will appear to destabilise the Tory party more frequently going forward.
I continue to agree that there is an intention to destabilise the Rishi Sunak.
How does criticism of Johnson's legislation, pushed through by Rees-Mogg himself and backed by the majority of Conservative party MPs help achieve this?
Simple divide and conquer techniques.
He's criticised his side to achieve this?
I think this is a Freudian slip wrapped up in the excitement of playing to his own political audience. Not part of the intentional political plan to maintain the power of the small, bit vocal, right of the pari.
Not only did he criticise his own party but himself who pushed the legislation through the party...
As a former minister that is water under the bridge for him, so easy to make it Sunak's problem.
Mogg's ambition, become a shadow minister
I still disagree that this is the intent.
If you look at The News Agents video of this, the intent was actually to dig at Labour's EU citizen and 16 year old voting policy as gerrymandering. He then used the voter ID as a bad example gerrymandering as it does not necessarily work out as intended.
He's still the one that ends up looking like a toad. He could lose his seat rather than be a Shadow minister judging by his local election results.
We don't, actually, know how many people were prevented from voting yet or the demographic.
You were one of the people who thought it was fine to introduce to fix something a long way from a non-problem. If Rees-Mogg's reasoning for the real introduction of the regulation how do you now view your stance on it, especially if it has prevented people from voting?
I still believe we need ID to vote, the resistance to change is not as bad as I thought it would be to be honest.
The need to modernise some of our outdated ways of doing things needs to be addressed and we need to not keep putting things off on the chance of upset.
Back to Mogg, he is a seasoned pro, even under the most hostile of situations he manages to keep calm and collected. He knew what he was doing.
Why do we need voter ID if there is no evidence that it is required?
Should all changes to the electoral process or decisions in general be based on not having data? In fact, based on doing the opposite of what data exists?
He wasn't under any pressure whatsoever. He was infront of a friendly audience.
He said that the ID rule was brought in for gerrymandering. That was the intent. You appear to have enthusiastically supported a policy brought in to bias the voting process. What are your thoughts on that?
We have moved from, typed passwords with no encryption, to passwords that need to X characters long, special characters and face ID. Biometric passports, text message and email confirmations, proof of right to work in the UK. All Incremental changes and I see no reason why in the 21st century we are not moving forward with adding voter ID to the list.
Should we make changes in contradiction to the available evidence or without evidence as a matter of course?
If not, why is voter ID the exception?
What are your thoughts on supporting a policy that was, apparently, intended to suppress the votes of those not voting for the party who created the law?
As I have said many times, I do not believe Mogg said that by accident and I'm rather surprised he has pulled the wool over your eyes, fascinating.
Back to the Voter ID, simple progress, moving actions and processes into the 21st century.
Your convoluted logic to claim that in criticising himself, Boris Johnson and the Conservative party for electoral corruption to attack Sunak remains incoherent.
Rees-Mogg, the man who took the legislation through Parliament, said that it was to gerrymander. There was no evidence before the change that there was any significant level of voter fraud that voter ID would solve. You supported it.
Voter ID, a solution without a problem.
Again, why is it a good idea to "make progress" to change something for which there is no evidence that needs change? Can you answer that fundamental question? Is it a good idea to change laws based on "suspicions"? Should we have more of this?"Mogg has had you over, plain and simple. Not getting into voter ID it is in place and non story | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To all those who insisted that this was necessary and not an attempt to manipulate voting… Mr Rees-Mogg said: "Parties that try and gerrymander end up finding their clever scheme comes back to bite them, as dare I say we found by insisting on voter ID for elections. "We found the people who didn't have ID were elderly and they by and large voted Conservative, so we made it hard for our own voters and we upset a system that worked perfectly well." https://news.sky.com/story/jacob-rees-mogg-suggests-requiring-photo-id-to-vote-was-attempt-to-gerrymander-which-came-back-to-bite-tories-12881602 I don't remember anyone round here saying it was necessary. What I do remember though was plenty of people saying this target the less well off, the young, immigrants etc etc. You know, those people who likely wouldn't vote tory. Turns out it was the opposite
Nobody said that it was necessary? Really? Nobody on the thread thought that there was a problem that needed solving?
Interesting perspective.
The Law change accidentally affected the " wrong" people. That's rather the point of what Rees-Mogg said. They failed to achieve what they set out to and, in fact, had the opposite effect.
You understood something different?
I have an interesting perspective? Feel free to prove me wrong.
Isn't it funny that Rees-Mogg has said this and you're all over it. David Davis said the opposite.
Usually, round here, it's said that Rees-Mogg talks out of his arse, obviously, apart from when it suits.
The point I made at the end was that this law change clearly didn't affect the very people that you all said it would.
I don't need to prove what's written in the thread either about their being fraud or the innuendo of "not knowing" if there is widespread fraud.
David Davis was not the Leader of the House of Commons when the act was introduced. He also said that the act was a threat to democracy.
David Davis actually said exactly the same thing as Rees-Mogg just has.
"Voter ID is like a US Republican policy of voter suppression, deliberately trying to undermine the voting capabilities of the disadvantaged and marginalised groups who would overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats."
"The Joint Committee on Human Rights has published a report into the Elections Bill. The committee warned that the introduction of a photo ID requirement may have a discriminatory impact on certain groups who are less likely to hold any form of photo ID, including older people and people with disabilities. This could create barriers to exercising their right to vote."
You are correct, I thought that the Government would have framed the legislation such that they would achieve their goal. However, they were too incompetent too.
Rees-Mogg has said that they failed to do what they had intended too. Disenfranchise those who would be most likely to vote against the Tory party.
What point are you making? You want to "prove" that I was wrong? Is that your only obsession?
The 'innuendo' of not knowing is just a fact, there was no measurable way to know whether people were who the said they were.
From your link:
'David Davis, the veteran Conservative MP, told Sky News that he did not think the voter ID reforms were an attempt to gerrymander.
"But if it were, it could turn out to be a spectacular miscalculation", he said, as "the Conservative Party gets the predominant share of the elderly vote".'
What does that look like David Davis is saying? Maybe I just can't read.
Why do you continually speak of my 'obsession' with you? Why don't we try to discuss the actual article rather than those cheap digs?
Tell me why you suddenly believe Rees-Mogg and not David Davis.
The Johnson backed group conservative democrats don't give a damn about who brought what in, their aim is take back power after ERG is no more. They are smart enough to know that Sunak cannot afford further issues, Sunak knows he can't go forward with this group. The aim of this group is to remove Sunak and take back the leadership, or to hold so much influence Sunak needs them to turn a light on. As I mentioned, let's revisit this, but I have a feeling things will appear to destabilise the Tory party more frequently going forward.
I continue to agree that there is an intention to destabilise the Rishi Sunak.
How does criticism of Johnson's legislation, pushed through by Rees-Mogg himself and backed by the majority of Conservative party MPs help achieve this?
Simple divide and conquer techniques.
He's criticised his side to achieve this?
I think this is a Freudian slip wrapped up in the excitement of playing to his own political audience. Not part of the intentional political plan to maintain the power of the small, bit vocal, right of the pari.
Not only did he criticise his own party but himself who pushed the legislation through the party...
As a former minister that is water under the bridge for him, so easy to make it Sunak's problem.
Mogg's ambition, become a shadow minister
I still disagree that this is the intent.
If you look at The News Agents video of this, the intent was actually to dig at Labour's EU citizen and 16 year old voting policy as gerrymandering. He then used the voter ID as a bad example gerrymandering as it does not necessarily work out as intended.
He's still the one that ends up looking like a toad. He could lose his seat rather than be a Shadow minister judging by his local election results.
We don't, actually, know how many people were prevented from voting yet or the demographic.
You were one of the people who thought it was fine to introduce to fix something a long way from a non-problem. If Rees-Mogg's reasoning for the real introduction of the regulation how do you now view your stance on it, especially if it has prevented people from voting?
I still believe we need ID to vote, the resistance to change is not as bad as I thought it would be to be honest.
The need to modernise some of our outdated ways of doing things needs to be addressed and we need to not keep putting things off on the chance of upset.
Back to Mogg, he is a seasoned pro, even under the most hostile of situations he manages to keep calm and collected. He knew what he was doing.
Why do we need voter ID if there is no evidence that it is required?
Should all changes to the electoral process or decisions in general be based on not having data? In fact, based on doing the opposite of what data exists?
He wasn't under any pressure whatsoever. He was infront of a friendly audience.
He said that the ID rule was brought in for gerrymandering. That was the intent. You appear to have enthusiastically supported a policy brought in to bias the voting process. What are your thoughts on that?
We have moved from, typed passwords with no encryption, to passwords that need to X characters long, special characters and face ID. Biometric passports, text message and email confirmations, proof of right to work in the UK. All Incremental changes and I see no reason why in the 21st century we are not moving forward with adding voter ID to the list.
Should we make changes in contradiction to the available evidence or without evidence as a matter of course?
If not, why is voter ID the exception?
What are your thoughts on supporting a policy that was, apparently, intended to suppress the votes of those not voting for the party who created the law?
As I have said many times, I do not believe Mogg said that by accident and I'm rather surprised he has pulled the wool over your eyes, fascinating.
Back to the Voter ID, simple progress, moving actions and processes into the 21st century.
Your convoluted logic to claim that in criticising himself, Boris Johnson and the Conservative party for electoral corruption to attack Sunak remains incoherent.
Rees-Mogg, the man who took the legislation through Parliament, said that it was to gerrymander. There was no evidence before the change that there was any significant level of voter fraud that voter ID would solve. You supported it.
Voter ID, a solution without a problem.
Again, why is it a good idea to "make progress" to change something for which there is no evidence that needs change? Can you answer that fundamental question? Is it a good idea to change laws based on "suspicions"? Should we have more of this?
Mogg has had you over, plain and simple. Not getting into voter ID it is in place and non story"Thought I'd requote all the above just to see it all, again, filling the page! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To all those who insisted that this was necessary and not an attempt to manipulate voting… Mr Rees-Mogg said: "Parties that try and gerrymander end up finding their clever scheme comes back to bite them, as dare I say we found by insisting on voter ID for elections. "We found the people who didn't have ID were elderly and they by and large voted Conservative, so we made it hard for our own voters and we upset a system that worked perfectly well." https://news.sky.com/story/jacob-rees-mogg-suggests-requiring-photo-id-to-vote-was-attempt-to-gerrymander-which-came-back-to-bite-tories-12881602 I don't remember anyone round here saying it was necessary. What I do remember though was plenty of people saying this target the less well off, the young, immigrants etc etc. You know, those people who likely wouldn't vote tory. Turns out it was the opposite
Nobody said that it was necessary? Really? Nobody on the thread thought that there was a problem that needed solving?
Interesting perspective.
The Law change accidentally affected the " wrong" people. That's rather the point of what Rees-Mogg said. They failed to achieve what they set out to and, in fact, had the opposite effect.
You understood something different?
I have an interesting perspective? Feel free to prove me wrong.
Isn't it funny that Rees-Mogg has said this and you're all over it. David Davis said the opposite.
Usually, round here, it's said that Rees-Mogg talks out of his arse, obviously, apart from when it suits.
The point I made at the end was that this law change clearly didn't affect the very people that you all said it would.
I don't need to prove what's written in the thread either about their being fraud or the innuendo of "not knowing" if there is widespread fraud.
David Davis was not the Leader of the House of Commons when the act was introduced. He also said that the act was a threat to democracy.
David Davis actually said exactly the same thing as Rees-Mogg just has.
"Voter ID is like a US Republican policy of voter suppression, deliberately trying to undermine the voting capabilities of the disadvantaged and marginalised groups who would overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats."
"The Joint Committee on Human Rights has published a report into the Elections Bill. The committee warned that the introduction of a photo ID requirement may have a discriminatory impact on certain groups who are less likely to hold any form of photo ID, including older people and people with disabilities. This could create barriers to exercising their right to vote."
You are correct, I thought that the Government would have framed the legislation such that they would achieve their goal. However, they were too incompetent too.
Rees-Mogg has said that they failed to do what they had intended too. Disenfranchise those who would be most likely to vote against the Tory party.
What point are you making? You want to "prove" that I was wrong? Is that your only obsession?
The 'innuendo' of not knowing is just a fact, there was no measurable way to know whether people were who the said they were.
From your link:
'David Davis, the veteran Conservative MP, told Sky News that he did not think the voter ID reforms were an attempt to gerrymander.
"But if it were, it could turn out to be a spectacular miscalculation", he said, as "the Conservative Party gets the predominant share of the elderly vote".'
What does that look like David Davis is saying? Maybe I just can't read.
Why do you continually speak of my 'obsession' with you? Why don't we try to discuss the actual article rather than those cheap digs?
Tell me why you suddenly believe Rees-Mogg and not David Davis.
The Johnson backed group conservative democrats don't give a damn about who brought what in, their aim is take back power after ERG is no more. They are smart enough to know that Sunak cannot afford further issues, Sunak knows he can't go forward with this group. The aim of this group is to remove Sunak and take back the leadership, or to hold so much influence Sunak needs them to turn a light on. As I mentioned, let's revisit this, but I have a feeling things will appear to destabilise the Tory party more frequently going forward.
I continue to agree that there is an intention to destabilise the Rishi Sunak.
How does criticism of Johnson's legislation, pushed through by Rees-Mogg himself and backed by the majority of Conservative party MPs help achieve this?
Simple divide and conquer techniques.
He's criticised his side to achieve this?
I think this is a Freudian slip wrapped up in the excitement of playing to his own political audience. Not part of the intentional political plan to maintain the power of the small, bit vocal, right of the pari.
Not only did he criticise his own party but himself who pushed the legislation through the party...
As a former minister that is water under the bridge for him, so easy to make it Sunak's problem.
Mogg's ambition, become a shadow minister
I still disagree that this is the intent.
If you look at The News Agents video of this, the intent was actually to dig at Labour's EU citizen and 16 year old voting policy as gerrymandering. He then used the voter ID as a bad example gerrymandering as it does not necessarily work out as intended.
He's still the one that ends up looking like a toad. He could lose his seat rather than be a Shadow minister judging by his local election results.
We don't, actually, know how many people were prevented from voting yet or the demographic.
You were one of the people who thought it was fine to introduce to fix something a long way from a non-problem. If Rees-Mogg's reasoning for the real introduction of the regulation how do you now view your stance on it, especially if it has prevented people from voting?
I still believe we need ID to vote, the resistance to change is not as bad as I thought it would be to be honest.
The need to modernise some of our outdated ways of doing things needs to be addressed and we need to not keep putting things off on the chance of upset.
Back to Mogg, he is a seasoned pro, even under the most hostile of situations he manages to keep calm and collected. He knew what he was doing.
Why do we need voter ID if there is no evidence that it is required?
Should all changes to the electoral process or decisions in general be based on not having data? In fact, based on doing the opposite of what data exists?
He wasn't under any pressure whatsoever. He was infront of a friendly audience.
He said that the ID rule was brought in for gerrymandering. That was the intent. You appear to have enthusiastically supported a policy brought in to bias the voting process. What are your thoughts on that?
We have moved from, typed passwords with no encryption, to passwords that need to X characters long, special characters and face ID. Biometric passports, text message and email confirmations, proof of right to work in the UK. All Incremental changes and I see no reason why in the 21st century we are not moving forward with adding voter ID to the list.
Should we make changes in contradiction to the available evidence or without evidence as a matter of course?
If not, why is voter ID the exception?
What are your thoughts on supporting a policy that was, apparently, intended to suppress the votes of those not voting for the party who created the law?
As I have said many times, I do not believe Mogg said that by accident and I'm rather surprised he has pulled the wool over your eyes, fascinating.
Back to the Voter ID, simple progress, moving actions and processes into the 21st century.
Your convoluted logic to claim that in criticising himself, Boris Johnson and the Conservative party for electoral corruption to attack Sunak remains incoherent.
Rees-Mogg, the man who took the legislation through Parliament, said that it was to gerrymander. There was no evidence before the change that there was any significant level of voter fraud that voter ID would solve. You supported it.
Voter ID, a solution without a problem.
Again, why is it a good idea to "make progress" to change something for which there is no evidence that needs change? Can you answer that fundamental question? Is it a good idea to change laws based on "suspicions"? Should we have more of this?
Mogg has had you over, plain and simple. Not getting into voter ID it is in place and non story
Thought I'd requote all the above just to see it all, again, filling the page!"..and to highlight the pointlessness of having an arbitrary thread cut off at 175, when, in reality, un-edited quoting is what really makes threads get too long! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To all those who insisted that this was necessary and not an attempt to manipulate voting… Mr Rees-Mogg said: "Parties that try and gerrymander end up finding their clever scheme comes back to bite them, as dare I say we found by insisting on voter ID for elections. "We found the people who didn't have ID were elderly and they by and large voted Conservative, so we made it hard for our own voters and we upset a system that worked perfectly well." https://news.sky.com/story/jacob-rees-mogg-suggests-requiring-photo-id-to-vote-was-attempt-to-gerrymander-which-came-back-to-bite-tories-12881602 I don't remember anyone round here saying it was necessary. What I do remember though was plenty of people saying this target the less well off, the young, immigrants etc etc. You know, those people who likely wouldn't vote tory. Turns out it was the opposite
Nobody said that it was necessary? Really? Nobody on the thread thought that there was a problem that needed solving?
Interesting perspective.
The Law change accidentally affected the " wrong" people. That's rather the point of what Rees-Mogg said. They failed to achieve what they set out to and, in fact, had the opposite effect.
You understood something different?
I have an interesting perspective? Feel free to prove me wrong.
Isn't it funny that Rees-Mogg has said this and you're all over it. David Davis said the opposite.
Usually, round here, it's said that Rees-Mogg talks out of his arse, obviously, apart from when it suits.
The point I made at the end was that this law change clearly didn't affect the very people that you all said it would.
I don't need to prove what's written in the thread either about their being fraud or the innuendo of "not knowing" if there is widespread fraud.
David Davis was not the Leader of the House of Commons when the act was introduced. He also said that the act was a threat to democracy.
David Davis actually said exactly the same thing as Rees-Mogg just has.
"Voter ID is like a US Republican policy of voter suppression, deliberately trying to undermine the voting capabilities of the disadvantaged and marginalised groups who would overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats."
"The Joint Committee on Human Rights has published a report into the Elections Bill. The committee warned that the introduction of a photo ID requirement may have a discriminatory impact on certain groups who are less likely to hold any form of photo ID, including older people and people with disabilities. This could create barriers to exercising their right to vote."
You are correct, I thought that the Government would have framed the legislation such that they would achieve their goal. However, they were too incompetent too.
Rees-Mogg has said that they failed to do what they had intended too. Disenfranchise those who would be most likely to vote against the Tory party.
What point are you making? You want to "prove" that I was wrong? Is that your only obsession?
The 'innuendo' of not knowing is just a fact, there was no measurable way to know whether people were who the said they were.
From your link:
'David Davis, the veteran Conservative MP, told Sky News that he did not think the voter ID reforms were an attempt to gerrymander.
"But if it were, it could turn out to be a spectacular miscalculation", he said, as "the Conservative Party gets the predominant share of the elderly vote".'
What does that look like David Davis is saying? Maybe I just can't read.
Why do you continually speak of my 'obsession' with you? Why don't we try to discuss the actual article rather than those cheap digs?
Tell me why you suddenly believe Rees-Mogg and not David Davis.
The Johnson backed group conservative democrats don't give a damn about who brought what in, their aim is take back power after ERG is no more. They are smart enough to know that Sunak cannot afford further issues, Sunak knows he can't go forward with this group. The aim of this group is to remove Sunak and take back the leadership, or to hold so much influence Sunak needs them to turn a light on. As I mentioned, let's revisit this, but I have a feeling things will appear to destabilise the Tory party more frequently going forward.
I continue to agree that there is an intention to destabilise the Rishi Sunak.
How does criticism of Johnson's legislation, pushed through by Rees-Mogg himself and backed by the majority of Conservative party MPs help achieve this?
Simple divide and conquer techniques.
He's criticised his side to achieve this?
I think this is a Freudian slip wrapped up in the excitement of playing to his own political audience. Not part of the intentional political plan to maintain the power of the small, bit vocal, right of the pari.
Not only did he criticise his own party but himself who pushed the legislation through the party...
As a former minister that is water under the bridge for him, so easy to make it Sunak's problem.
Mogg's ambition, become a shadow minister
I still disagree that this is the intent.
If you look at The News Agents video of this, the intent was actually to dig at Labour's EU citizen and 16 year old voting policy as gerrymandering. He then used the voter ID as a bad example gerrymandering as it does not necessarily work out as intended.
He's still the one that ends up looking like a toad. He could lose his seat rather than be a Shadow minister judging by his local election results.
We don't, actually, know how many people were prevented from voting yet or the demographic.
You were one of the people who thought it was fine to introduce to fix something a long way from a non-problem. If Rees-Mogg's reasoning for the real introduction of the regulation how do you now view your stance on it, especially if it has prevented people from voting?
I still believe we need ID to vote, the resistance to change is not as bad as I thought it would be to be honest.
The need to modernise some of our outdated ways of doing things needs to be addressed and we need to not keep putting things off on the chance of upset.
Back to Mogg, he is a seasoned pro, even under the most hostile of situations he manages to keep calm and collected. He knew what he was doing.
Why do we need voter ID if there is no evidence that it is required?
Should all changes to the electoral process or decisions in general be based on not having data? In fact, based on doing the opposite of what data exists?
He wasn't under any pressure whatsoever. He was infront of a friendly audience.
He said that the ID rule was brought in for gerrymandering. That was the intent. You appear to have enthusiastically supported a policy brought in to bias the voting process. What are your thoughts on that?
We have moved from, typed passwords with no encryption, to passwords that need to X characters long, special characters and face ID. Biometric passports, text message and email confirmations, proof of right to work in the UK. All Incremental changes and I see no reason why in the 21st century we are not moving forward with adding voter ID to the list.
Should we make changes in contradiction to the available evidence or without evidence as a matter of course?
If not, why is voter ID the exception?
What are your thoughts on supporting a policy that was, apparently, intended to suppress the votes of those not voting for the party who created the law?
As I have said many times, I do not believe Mogg said that by accident and I'm rather surprised he has pulled the wool over your eyes, fascinating.
Back to the Voter ID, simple progress, moving actions and processes into the 21st century.
Your convoluted logic to claim that in criticising himself, Boris Johnson and the Conservative party for electoral corruption to attack Sunak remains incoherent.
Rees-Mogg, the man who took the legislation through Parliament, said that it was to gerrymander. There was no evidence before the change that there was any significant level of voter fraud that voter ID would solve. You supported it.
Voter ID, a solution without a problem.
Again, why is it a good idea to "make progress" to change something for which there is no evidence that needs change? Can you answer that fundamental question? Is it a good idea to change laws based on "suspicions"? Should we have more of this?
Mogg has had you over, plain and simple. Not getting into voter ID it is in place and non story
Thought I'd requote all the above just to see it all, again, filling the page!
..and to highlight the pointlessness of having an arbitrary thread cut off at 175, when, in reality, un-edited quoting is what really makes threads get too long!"..and it is a lot quicker to whizz to the bottom on a decent computer instead of scrolling down on a phone! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To all those who insisted that this was necessary and not an attempt to manipulate voting… Mr Rees-Mogg said: "Parties that try and gerrymander end up finding their clever scheme comes back to bite them, as dare I say we found by insisting on voter ID for elections. "We found the people who didn't have ID were elderly and they by and large voted Conservative, so we made it hard for our own voters and we upset a system that worked perfectly well." https://news.sky.com/story/jacob-rees-mogg-suggests-requiring-photo-id-to-vote-was-attempt-to-gerrymander-which-came-back-to-bite-tories-12881602 I don't remember anyone round here saying it was necessary. What I do remember though was plenty of people saying this target the less well off, the young, immigrants etc etc. You know, those people who likely wouldn't vote tory. Turns out it was the opposite
Nobody said that it was necessary? Really? Nobody on the thread thought that there was a problem that needed solving?
Interesting perspective.
The Law change accidentally affected the " wrong" people. That's rather the point of what Rees-Mogg said. They failed to achieve what they set out to and, in fact, had the opposite effect.
You understood something different?
I have an interesting perspective? Feel free to prove me wrong.
Isn't it funny that Rees-Mogg has said this and you're all over it. David Davis said the opposite.
Usually, round here, it's said that Rees-Mogg talks out of his arse, obviously, apart from when it suits.
The point I made at the end was that this law change clearly didn't affect the very people that you all said it would.
I don't need to prove what's written in the thread either about their being fraud or the innuendo of "not knowing" if there is widespread fraud.
David Davis was not the Leader of the House of Commons when the act was introduced. He also said that the act was a threat to democracy.
David Davis actually said exactly the same thing as Rees-Mogg just has.
"Voter ID is like a US Republican policy of voter suppression, deliberately trying to undermine the voting capabilities of the disadvantaged and marginalised groups who would overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats."
"The Joint Committee on Human Rights has published a report into the Elections Bill. The committee warned that the introduction of a photo ID requirement may have a discriminatory impact on certain groups who are less likely to hold any form of photo ID, including older people and people with disabilities. This could create barriers to exercising their right to vote."
You are correct, I thought that the Government would have framed the legislation such that they would achieve their goal. However, they were too incompetent too.
Rees-Mogg has said that they failed to do what they had intended too. Disenfranchise those who would be most likely to vote against the Tory party.
What point are you making? You want to "prove" that I was wrong? Is that your only obsession?
The 'innuendo' of not knowing is just a fact, there was no measurable way to know whether people were who the said they were.
From your link:
'David Davis, the veteran Conservative MP, told Sky News that he did not think the voter ID reforms were an attempt to gerrymander.
"But if it were, it could turn out to be a spectacular miscalculation", he said, as "the Conservative Party gets the predominant share of the elderly vote".'
What does that look like David Davis is saying? Maybe I just can't read.
Why do you continually speak of my 'obsession' with you? Why don't we try to discuss the actual article rather than those cheap digs?
Tell me why you suddenly believe Rees-Mogg and not David Davis.
The Johnson backed group conservative democrats don't give a damn about who brought what in, their aim is take back power after ERG is no more. They are smart enough to know that Sunak cannot afford further issues, Sunak knows he can't go forward with this group. The aim of this group is to remove Sunak and take back the leadership, or to hold so much influence Sunak needs them to turn a light on. As I mentioned, let's revisit this, but I have a feeling things will appear to destabilise the Tory party more frequently going forward.
I continue to agree that there is an intention to destabilise the Rishi Sunak.
How does criticism of Johnson's legislation, pushed through by Rees-Mogg himself and backed by the majority of Conservative party MPs help achieve this?
Simple divide and conquer techniques.
He's criticised his side to achieve this?
I think this is a Freudian slip wrapped up in the excitement of playing to his own political audience. Not part of the intentional political plan to maintain the power of the small, bit vocal, right of the pari.
Not only did he criticise his own party but himself who pushed the legislation through the party...
As a former minister that is water under the bridge for him, so easy to make it Sunak's problem.
Mogg's ambition, become a shadow minister
I still disagree that this is the intent.
If you look at The News Agents video of this, the intent was actually to dig at Labour's EU citizen and 16 year old voting policy as gerrymandering. He then used the voter ID as a bad example gerrymandering as it does not necessarily work out as intended.
He's still the one that ends up looking like a toad. He could lose his seat rather than be a Shadow minister judging by his local election results.
We don't, actually, know how many people were prevented from voting yet or the demographic.
You were one of the people who thought it was fine to introduce to fix something a long way from a non-problem. If Rees-Mogg's reasoning for the real introduction of the regulation how do you now view your stance on it, especially if it has prevented people from voting?
I still believe we need ID to vote, the resistance to change is not as bad as I thought it would be to be honest.
The need to modernise some of our outdated ways of doing things needs to be addressed and we need to not keep putting things off on the chance of upset.
Back to Mogg, he is a seasoned pro, even under the most hostile of situations he manages to keep calm and collected. He knew what he was doing.
Why do we need voter ID if there is no evidence that it is required?
Should all changes to the electoral process or decisions in general be based on not having data? In fact, based on doing the opposite of what data exists?
He wasn't under any pressure whatsoever. He was infront of a friendly audience.
He said that the ID rule was brought in for gerrymandering. That was the intent. You appear to have enthusiastically supported a policy brought in to bias the voting process. What are your thoughts on that?
We have moved from, typed passwords with no encryption, to passwords that need to X characters long, special characters and face ID. Biometric passports, text message and email confirmations, proof of right to work in the UK. All Incremental changes and I see no reason why in the 21st century we are not moving forward with adding voter ID to the list.
Should we make changes in contradiction to the available evidence or without evidence as a matter of course?
If not, why is voter ID the exception?
What are your thoughts on supporting a policy that was, apparently, intended to suppress the votes of those not voting for the party who created the law?
As I have said many times, I do not believe Mogg said that by accident and I'm rather surprised he has pulled the wool over your eyes, fascinating.
Back to the Voter ID, simple progress, moving actions and processes into the 21st century.
Your convoluted logic to claim that in criticising himself, Boris Johnson and the Conservative party for electoral corruption to attack Sunak remains incoherent.
Rees-Mogg, the man who took the legislation through Parliament, said that it was to gerrymander. There was no evidence before the change that there was any significant level of voter fraud that voter ID would solve. You supported it.
Voter ID, a solution without a problem.
Again, why is it a good idea to "make progress" to change something for which there is no evidence that needs change? Can you answer that fundamental question? Is it a good idea to change laws based on "suspicions"? Should we have more of this?
Mogg has had you over, plain and simple. Not getting into voter ID it is in place and non story"So, is it a good idea to make changes to the law based on "suspicions" or just arbitrarily? That seems to be the only other reason for introducing voter ID. How has Rees-Mogg "pulled the wool over my eyes"? What has he, his party and his faction gained from saying that they have deliberately corrupted the political process? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To all those who insisted that this was necessary and not an attempt to manipulate voting… Mr Rees-Mogg said: "Parties that try and gerrymander end up finding their clever scheme comes back to bite them, as dare I say we found by insisting on voter ID for elections. "We found the people who didn't have ID were elderly and they by and large voted Conservative, so we made it hard for our own voters and we upset a system that worked perfectly well." https://news.sky.com/story/jacob-rees-mogg-suggests-requiring-photo-id-to-vote-was-attempt-to-gerrymander-which-came-back-to-bite-tories-12881602 I don't remember anyone round here saying it was necessary. What I do remember though was plenty of people saying this target the less well off, the young, immigrants etc etc. You know, those people who likely wouldn't vote tory. Turns out it was the opposite
Nobody said that it was necessary? Really? Nobody on the thread thought that there was a problem that needed solving?
Interesting perspective.
The Law change accidentally affected the " wrong" people. That's rather the point of what Rees-Mogg said. They failed to achieve what they set out to and, in fact, had the opposite effect.
You understood something different?
I have an interesting perspective? Feel free to prove me wrong.
Isn't it funny that Rees-Mogg has said this and you're all over it. David Davis said the opposite.
Usually, round here, it's said that Rees-Mogg talks out of his arse, obviously, apart from when it suits.
The point I made at the end was that this law change clearly didn't affect the very people that you all said it would.
I don't need to prove what's written in the thread either about their being fraud or the innuendo of "not knowing" if there is widespread fraud.
David Davis was not the Leader of the House of Commons when the act was introduced. He also said that the act was a threat to democracy.
David Davis actually said exactly the same thing as Rees-Mogg just has.
"Voter ID is like a US Republican policy of voter suppression, deliberately trying to undermine the voting capabilities of the disadvantaged and marginalised groups who would overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats."
"The Joint Committee on Human Rights has published a report into the Elections Bill. The committee warned that the introduction of a photo ID requirement may have a discriminatory impact on certain groups who are less likely to hold any form of photo ID, including older people and people with disabilities. This could create barriers to exercising their right to vote."
You are correct, I thought that the Government would have framed the legislation such that they would achieve their goal. However, they were too incompetent too.
Rees-Mogg has said that they failed to do what they had intended too. Disenfranchise those who would be most likely to vote against the Tory party.
What point are you making? You want to "prove" that I was wrong? Is that your only obsession?
The 'innuendo' of not knowing is just a fact, there was no measurable way to know whether people were who the said they were.
From your link:
'David Davis, the veteran Conservative MP, told Sky News that he did not think the voter ID reforms were an attempt to gerrymander.
"But if it were, it could turn out to be a spectacular miscalculation", he said, as "the Conservative Party gets the predominant share of the elderly vote".'
What does that look like David Davis is saying? Maybe I just can't read.
Why do you continually speak of my 'obsession' with you? Why don't we try to discuss the actual article rather than those cheap digs?
Tell me why you suddenly believe Rees-Mogg and not David Davis.
The Johnson backed group conservative democrats don't give a damn about who brought what in, their aim is take back power after ERG is no more. They are smart enough to know that Sunak cannot afford further issues, Sunak knows he can't go forward with this group. The aim of this group is to remove Sunak and take back the leadership, or to hold so much influence Sunak needs them to turn a light on. As I mentioned, let's revisit this, but I have a feeling things will appear to destabilise the Tory party more frequently going forward.
I continue to agree that there is an intention to destabilise the Rishi Sunak.
How does criticism of Johnson's legislation, pushed through by Rees-Mogg himself and backed by the majority of Conservative party MPs help achieve this?
Simple divide and conquer techniques.
He's criticised his side to achieve this?
I think this is a Freudian slip wrapped up in the excitement of playing to his own political audience. Not part of the intentional political plan to maintain the power of the small, bit vocal, right of the pari.
Not only did he criticise his own party but himself who pushed the legislation through the party...
As a former minister that is water under the bridge for him, so easy to make it Sunak's problem.
Mogg's ambition, become a shadow minister
I still disagree that this is the intent.
If you look at The News Agents video of this, the intent was actually to dig at Labour's EU citizen and 16 year old voting policy as gerrymandering. He then used the voter ID as a bad example gerrymandering as it does not necessarily work out as intended.
He's still the one that ends up looking like a toad. He could lose his seat rather than be a Shadow minister judging by his local election results.
We don't, actually, know how many people were prevented from voting yet or the demographic.
You were one of the people who thought it was fine to introduce to fix something a long way from a non-problem. If Rees-Mogg's reasoning for the real introduction of the regulation how do you now view your stance on it, especially if it has prevented people from voting?
I still believe we need ID to vote, the resistance to change is not as bad as I thought it would be to be honest.
The need to modernise some of our outdated ways of doing things needs to be addressed and we need to not keep putting things off on the chance of upset.
Back to Mogg, he is a seasoned pro, even under the most hostile of situations he manages to keep calm and collected. He knew what he was doing.
Why do we need voter ID if there is no evidence that it is required?
Should all changes to the electoral process or decisions in general be based on not having data? In fact, based on doing the opposite of what data exists?
He wasn't under any pressure whatsoever. He was infront of a friendly audience.
He said that the ID rule was brought in for gerrymandering. That was the intent. You appear to have enthusiastically supported a policy brought in to bias the voting process. What are your thoughts on that?
We have moved from, typed passwords with no encryption, to passwords that need to X characters long, special characters and face ID. Biometric passports, text message and email confirmations, proof of right to work in the UK. All Incremental changes and I see no reason why in the 21st century we are not moving forward with adding voter ID to the list.
Should we make changes in contradiction to the available evidence or without evidence as a matter of course?
If not, why is voter ID the exception?
What are your thoughts on supporting a policy that was, apparently, intended to suppress the votes of those not voting for the party who created the law?
As I have said many times, I do not believe Mogg said that by accident and I'm rather surprised he has pulled the wool over your eyes, fascinating.
Back to the Voter ID, simple progress, moving actions and processes into the 21st century.
Your convoluted logic to claim that in criticising himself, Boris Johnson and the Conservative party for electoral corruption to attack Sunak remains incoherent.
Rees-Mogg, the man who took the legislation through Parliament, said that it was to gerrymander. There was no evidence before the change that there was any significant level of voter fraud that voter ID would solve. You supported it.
Voter ID, a solution without a problem.
Again, why is it a good idea to "make progress" to change something for which there is no evidence that needs change? Can you answer that fundamental question? Is it a good idea to change laws based on "suspicions"? Should we have more of this?
Mogg has had you over, plain and simple. Not getting into voter ID it is in place and non story
So, is it a good idea to make changes to the law based on "suspicions" or just arbitrarily?
That seems to be the only other reason for introducing voter ID.
How has Rees-Mogg "pulled the wool over my eyes"?
What has he, his party and his faction gained from saying that they have deliberately corrupted the political process?"Quite! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Mogg has had you over, plain and simple. Not getting into voter ID it is in place and non story So, is it a good idea to make changes to the law based on "suspicions" or just arbitrarily? That seems to be the only other reason for introducing voter ID. How has Rees-Mogg "pulled the wool over my eyes"? What has he, his party and his faction gained from saying that they have deliberately corrupted the political process?" I have gone through this in detail already, you don't accept it, great your choice. You don't accept voter ID, well that too is great, don't turn up with it out of protest maybe?
This post has been cutdown, I hope it has been appreciated  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To all those who insisted that this was necessary and not an attempt to manipulate voting… Mr Rees-Mogg said: "Parties that try and gerrymander end up finding their clever scheme comes back to bite them, as dare I say we found by insisting on voter ID for elections. "We found the people who didn't have ID were elderly and they by and large voted Conservative, so we made it hard for our own voters and we upset a system that worked perfectly well." https://news.sky.com/story/jacob-rees-mogg-suggests-requiring-photo-id-to-vote-was-attempt-to-gerrymander-which-came-back-to-bite-tories-12881602 I don't remember anyone round here saying it was necessary. What I do remember though was plenty of people saying this target the less well off, the young, immigrants etc etc. You know, those people who likely wouldn't vote tory. Turns out it was the opposite
Nobody said that it was necessary? Really? Nobody on the thread thought that there was a problem that needed solving?
Interesting perspective.
The Law change accidentally affected the " wrong" people. That's rather the point of what Rees-Mogg said. They failed to achieve what they set out to and, in fact, had the opposite effect.
You understood something different?
I have an interesting perspective? Feel free to prove me wrong.
Isn't it funny that Rees-Mogg has said this and you're all over it. David Davis said the opposite.
Usually, round here, it's said that Rees-Mogg talks out of his arse, obviously, apart from when it suits.
The point I made at the end was that this law change clearly didn't affect the very people that you all said it would.
I don't need to prove what's written in the thread either about their being fraud or the innuendo of "not knowing" if there is widespread fraud.
David Davis was not the Leader of the House of Commons when the act was introduced. He also said that the act was a threat to democracy.
David Davis actually said exactly the same thing as Rees-Mogg just has.
"Voter ID is like a US Republican policy of voter suppression, deliberately trying to undermine the voting capabilities of the disadvantaged and marginalised groups who would overwhelmingly vote for the Democrats."
"The Joint Committee on Human Rights has published a report into the Elections Bill. The committee warned that the introduction of a photo ID requirement may have a discriminatory impact on certain groups who are less likely to hold any form of photo ID, including older people and people with disabilities. This could create barriers to exercising their right to vote."
You are correct, I thought that the Government would have framed the legislation such that they would achieve their goal. However, they were too incompetent too.
Rees-Mogg has said that they failed to do what they had intended too. Disenfranchise those who would be most likely to vote against the Tory party.
What point are you making? You want to "prove" that I was wrong? Is that your only obsession?
The 'innuendo' of not knowing is just a fact, there was no measurable way to know whether people were who the said they were.
From your link:
'David Davis, the veteran Conservative MP, told Sky News that he did not think the voter ID reforms were an attempt to gerrymander.
"But if it were, it could turn out to be a spectacular miscalculation", he said, as "the Conservative Party gets the predominant share of the elderly vote".'
What does that look like David Davis is saying? Maybe I just can't read.
Why do you continually speak of my 'obsession' with you? Why don't we try to discuss the actual article rather than those cheap digs?
Tell me why you suddenly believe Rees-Mogg and not David Davis.
The Johnson backed group conservative democrats don't give a damn about who brought what in, their aim is take back power after ERG is no more. They are smart enough to know that Sunak cannot afford further issues, Sunak knows he can't go forward with this group. The aim of this group is to remove Sunak and take back the leadership, or to hold so much influence Sunak needs them to turn a light on. As I mentioned, let's revisit this, but I have a feeling things will appear to destabilise the Tory party more frequently going forward.
I continue to agree that there is an intention to destabilise the Rishi Sunak.
How does criticism of Johnson's legislation, pushed through by Rees-Mogg himself and backed by the majority of Conservative party MPs help achieve this?
Simple divide and conquer techniques.
He's criticised his side to achieve this?
I think this is a Freudian slip wrapped up in the excitement of playing to his own political audience. Not part of the intentional political plan to maintain the power of the small, bit vocal, right of the pari.
Not only did he criticise his own party but himself who pushed the legislation through the party...
As a former minister that is water under the bridge for him, so easy to make it Sunak's problem.
Mogg's ambition, become a shadow minister
I still disagree that this is the intent.
If you look at The News Agents video of this, the intent was actually to dig at Labour's EU citizen and 16 year old voting policy as gerrymandering. He then used the voter ID as a bad example gerrymandering as it does not necessarily work out as intended.
He's still the one that ends up looking like a toad. He could lose his seat rather than be a Shadow minister judging by his local election results.
We don't, actually, know how many people were prevented from voting yet or the demographic.
You were one of the people who thought it was fine to introduce to fix something a long way from a non-problem. If Rees-Mogg's reasoning for the real introduction of the regulation how do you now view your stance on it, especially if it has prevented people from voting?
I still believe we need ID to vote, the resistance to change is not as bad as I thought it would be to be honest.
The need to modernise some of our outdated ways of doing things needs to be addressed and we need to not keep putting things off on the chance of upset.
Back to Mogg, he is a seasoned pro, even under the most hostile of situations he manages to keep calm and collected. He knew what he was doing.
Why do we need voter ID if there is no evidence that it is required?
Should all changes to the electoral process or decisions in general be based on not having data? In fact, based on doing the opposite of what data exists?
He wasn't under any pressure whatsoever. He was infront of a friendly audience.
He said that the ID rule was brought in for gerrymandering. That was the intent. You appear to have enthusiastically supported a policy brought in to bias the voting process. What are your thoughts on that?
We have moved from, typed passwords with no encryption, to passwords that need to X characters long, special characters and face ID. Biometric passports, text message and email confirmations, proof of right to work in the UK. All Incremental changes and I see no reason why in the 21st century we are not moving forward with adding voter ID to the list.
Should we make changes in contradiction to the available evidence or without evidence as a matter of course?
If not, why is voter ID the exception?
What are your thoughts on supporting a policy that was, apparently, intended to suppress the votes of those not voting for the party who created the law?
As I have said many times, I do not believe Mogg said that by accident and I'm rather surprised he has pulled the wool over your eyes, fascinating.
Back to the Voter ID, simple progress, moving actions and processes into the 21st century.
Your convoluted logic to claim that in criticising himself, Boris Johnson and the Conservative party for electoral corruption to attack Sunak remains incoherent.
Rees-Mogg, the man who took the legislation through Parliament, said that it was to gerrymander. There was no evidence before the change that there was any significant level of voter fraud that voter ID would solve. You supported it.
Voter ID, a solution without a problem.
Again, why is it a good idea to "make progress" to change something for which there is no evidence that needs change? Can you answer that fundamental question? Is it a good idea to change laws based on "suspicions"? Should we have more of this?
Mogg has had you over, plain and simple. Not getting into voter ID it is in place and non story
So, is it a good idea to make changes to the law based on "suspicions" or just arbitrarily?
That seems to be the only other reason for introducing voter ID.
How has Rees-Mogg "pulled the wool over my eyes"?
What has he, his party and his faction gained from saying that they have deliberately corrupted the political process?
Quite!"Oh my!! I expected an cutdown version after your last 3 posts on scrolling through long posts, what is good for the... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
