You "need" ID to vote

What's Hot
2»

Comments

  • FunkfingersFunkfingers Frets: 2788
    Yes to PR. 
    P.R. for the second chamber (the House Of Lords). First past the post for Parliament. Same vote counts for both.

    This means that UKIP and assorted *patriotic* nasties get the representation to which they are rightfully entitled but also that their unsavoury views will be argued down by reasoned debate.


    I fear the Geeks, even when they bear GIFs.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • HeartfeltdawnHeartfeltdawn Frets: 10684
    Yes to PR. 
    P.R. for the second chamber (the House Of Lords). First past the post for Parliament. Same vote counts for both.

    This means that UKIP and assorted *patriotic* nasties get the representation to which they are rightfully entitled but also that their unsavoury views will be argued down by reasoned debate.



    It would be nonsensical to have a fairer system for the Lords whilst retaining a fundamentally crooked one for the Commons. 
    I make Jeremy Paxman look like Fingermouse. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 2reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • ICBMICBM Frets: 30905
    Heartfeltdawn said:

    It would be nonsensical to have a fairer system for the Lords whilst retaining a fundamentally crooked one for the Commons. 
    The advantage of keeping FPTP for the commons would be that it retains the constituency link and makes it easier for true non-party independents to win. OK, that's also achievable with STV - but I wouldn't want to go to full PR for the commons for those reasons.

    For the Lords, pure PR on a national level makes the most sense because it ensures that the 'brake' on government is applied by a true majority. There should still be some way of incorporating non-party independents though - I'm not sure how.
    "Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone."
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • HeartfeltdawnHeartfeltdawn Frets: 10684
    ICBM said:
    Heartfeltdawn said:

    It would be nonsensical to have a fairer system for the Lords whilst retaining a fundamentally crooked one for the Commons. 
    The advantage of keeping FPTP for the commons would be that it retains the constituency link and makes it easier for true non-party independents to win. OK, that's also achievable with STV - but I wouldn't want to go to full PR for the commons for those reasons.

    For the Lords, pure PR on a national level makes the most sense because it ensures that the 'brake' on government is applied by a true majority. There should still be some way of incorporating non-party independents though - I'm not sure how.
    When you look at the number of independent/minor party MPs since 1950, then retaining FPTP as a method of gaining independents isn't one I believe is very strong. 

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_UK_minor_party_and_independent_MPs_elected

    I'm admittedly not someone who believes the constituency link is anywhere near as vital as it was in the past, partly due to modern communications. Writing to an MP was the method of gaining some public traction: now we have Twitter, Facebook, and the viral world.
    I make Jeremy Paxman look like Fingermouse. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • jpfampsjpfamps Frets: 1317
    edited June 6
    ICBM said:
    Heartfeltdawn said:

    It would be nonsensical to have a fairer system for the Lords whilst retaining a fundamentally crooked one for the Commons. 
    The advantage of keeping FPTP for the commons would be that it retains the constituency link and makes it easier for true non-party independents to win. OK, that's also achievable with STV - but I wouldn't want to go to full PR for the commons for those reasons.

    For the Lords, pure PR on a national level makes the most sense because it ensures that the 'brake' on government is applied by a true majority. There should still be some way of incorporating non-party independents though - I'm not sure how.
    Equally it could be argued that the FPTP encourages people NOT to vote for smaller parties as they are unlikely to get any representation.

    The Lords is a real problem as on the one hand its composition is risible, but it's also a very effective part of Government. The idea of filling it with Common's rejects does not thrill me.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • ColsCols Frets: 205
    99.7% of voters in the pilot areas managed to pitch up with the correct ID; looks like a success to me.

     http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-44197338
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • Phil_aka_PipPhil_aka_Pip Frets: 8438
    jpfamps said:

    The Lords is a real problem as on the one hand it's composition is risible, but it's also a very effective part of Government. The idea of filling it with Common's rejects does not thrill me.
    Me neither, but isn't that what happens?
    "Working" software has only unobserved bugs. (Parroty Error: Pieces of Nine! Pieces of Nine!)
    Seriously: If you value it, take/fetch it yourself
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • HeartfeltdawnHeartfeltdawn Frets: 10684
    Cols said:
    99.7% of voters in the pilot areas managed to pitch up with the correct ID; looks like a success to me.

     http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-44197338
    99.73% appears to just be Woking. Quoting Ray Morgan, Woking's Returning Officer:

    “Like all pilot projects, the main purpose of the Voter ID trial was to stress-test the idea for viability and, as was wholly expected, there were some minor administrative issues encountered which we will need to address."

    It's a pretty light stress test when you look at the turnout figures. 

    file:///home/chronos/u-41bc4387735f03673c165e8c472a717ffe415193/Downloads/voteridtrialresults.pdf

    Also shows how important postal voting is becoming to many. 


    I make Jeremy Paxman look like Fingermouse. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • HeartfeltdawnHeartfeltdawn Frets: 10684
    It's also important to put these numbers up against fraud cases from the last GE, as these schemes are supposed to tackle fraud. 

    https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/electoral-fraud/data-and-analysis

    So Woking had an electorate of 18,800 and 51 people did not vote. When you consider the above link states there were 104 voting offences according to data gathered from 45 police forces across the country, and that the largest group were campaign offences, then is voter ID a sledgehammer to crack a very small walnut that could end up denying honest people a rightful vote? 

    I make Jeremy Paxman look like Fingermouse. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • WhitecatWhitecat Frets: 1566
    It's also important to put these numbers up against fraud cases from the last GE, as these schemes are supposed to tackle fraud. 

    https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/electoral-fraud/data-and-analysis

    So Woking had an electorate of 18,800 and 51 people did not vote. When you consider the above link states there were 104 voting offences according to data gathered from 45 police forces across the country, and that the largest group were campaign offences, then is voter ID a sledgehammer to crack a very small walnut that could end up denying honest people a rightful vote? 

    Yup. It's a non-problem. The figures are obviously being spun too - I'm in Woking, I did two surveys on it, one on the doorstep for the Cabinet Office and other online for the council. The fact that I was able to vote doesn't change the fact I'm against it in principle in its current form and I made sure I noted that in both surveys... but they just want pure numbers I guess. Because nearly 98% were able, that's enough for them.

    I wonder if this were undertaken in a less affluent area just how "successful" it would have been...
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • jpfampsjpfamps Frets: 1317
    jpfamps said:

    The Lords is a real problem as on the one hand it's composition is risible, but it's also a very effective part of Government. The idea of filling it with Common's rejects does not thrill me.
    Me neither, but isn't that what happens?
    Well that does indeed seem to be happening; although at least those "promoted" have experience in government / the HoC.

    Having said that, it's interesting that once elevated to the Lords, incumbents are much more likely to vote against the party line.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • ICBMICBM Frets: 30905
    jpfamps said:

    Having said that, it's interesting that once elevated to the Lords, incumbents are much more likely to vote against the party line.
    Because they have nothing to gain from not doing. Their careers are effectively over at that point.
    "Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone."
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • Phil_aka_PipPhil_aka_Pip Frets: 8438
    ICBM said:
    jpfamps said:

    Having said that, it's interesting that once elevated to the Lords, incumbents are much more likely to vote against the party line.
    Because they have nothing to gain from not doing. Their careers are effectively over at that point.
    ... except that they get paid sh1tloads of money. I'd like to have an ended career that still pays me pots of lovely money ....
    "Working" software has only unobserved bugs. (Parroty Error: Pieces of Nine! Pieces of Nine!)
    Seriously: If you value it, take/fetch it yourself
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • HeartfeltdawnHeartfeltdawn Frets: 10684
    ... except that they get paid sh1tloads of money. I'd like to have an ended career that still pays me pots of lovely money ....


    "Most members of the Lords do not receive a salary for their parliamentary duties but are eligible to receive allowances and, within certain limits, the travel expenses they incur in fulfilling their parliamentary duties.

    Members who are not paid a salary may claim a flat rate attendance allowance of £150 or £300 for each sitting day they attend the House. This daily allowance replaces the separate overnight subsistence, day subsistence and office costs in the previous system. Entitlement is determined by attendance, not residence criteria.

    Some members of the Lords receive a salary because of the offices they hold.

    • The Lord Speaker, the Chairman of Committees, and the Principal Deputy Chairman - paid from the House of Lords budget.
    • Government ministers - paid by the relevant government departments.

    Members who receive a ministerial or office holders' salary are not entitled to claim the allowances based on attendance."


    Each sitting day = at around 39 weeks per year  (I haven't worked out the exact amount. Recesses are more numerous than school holidays because of things like neither House meeting during party conference season). 


    300 * 5 * 39 = £58,500

    150 * 5 * 39 = £29,250.


    Given the importance of the Lords as a place of legislative scrutiny, I don't think this is excessive. 

    I make Jeremy Paxman look like Fingermouse. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.