|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: UK General Election June 8th 2017
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
That's me - posh school. Now they send begging letters so they can help poor boys go there. Well, I'll go to the bottom of our stairs.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
If I were running a private school, expanding my market into clever (= good outcome stats) poor boys at someone else's expense sounds like a great move. Well, that was me, too.
At the one I went to, thick rich boys thought to be potentially draining on the outcome stats were offered the 24-hour supervision afforded by (otherwise-somewhat-depleted, rather-expensive-to-be-at) boarding houses. Trebles all round!
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
That's me - posh school. Now they send begging letters so they can help poor boys go there. Well, I'll go to the bottom of our stairs.
Surely if you'd gone posh skool, you'd refer to it as the foot of your stairs.
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
in general and from a management perspective new entrants are effectively cash-cards to be inserted into the hole-in-the-wall of government funding and public cash extracted. Woe betide the department who loses a cash card before its 3 (or 4) year expiry date comes up.
I spent some time in a university that would probably be ranked solidly in the first division. The attitude of management was no different. Departments were ordered to keep failing students by any means possible, which generally meant that they stuck around enjoying the student lifestyle until some point in the middle of the final year, where they would finally face up to the crashing realization that having done no work at all for the last three or four years was not adequate preparation for their final exams, and they would drop out (either formally or informally).
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
That's me - posh school. Now they send begging letters so they can help poor boys go there. Well, I'll go to the bottom of our stairs.
Surely if you'd gone posh skool, you'd refer to it as the foot of your stairs.
Well, posh boys' schools, bottoms, fat boys in the gym, naked boys in the pool, teachers come to watch, so it goes.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I've never really understood why left-wing people cling to railway re-nationalisation as some kind of totem. My understanding is that most railway journeys are taken in south-east England. Why is making the bus drivers of Blyth subsidise the commutes of the stockbrokers of Surrey considered progresssive or socialist?
Trains in the south-east have - generally - a slightly higher average utilisation than trains elsewhere. Additionally, rationalisation has seen lines close - which further skews the picture towards the south-east. Lastly, it is not just the rich who use the trains - the large majority of people who use the trains are not well paid stockbrokers - even in the square mile, for every well paid stockbroker there are plenty of cleaners, waiting staff etc using the trains.
So you are taking a skewed picture, imposing an unrepresentative figure and then claiming that a point has been made.
A more extensive network and lower fares, would see a greater diversity of people using the trains.
[ 11. May 2017, 18:15: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
More particularly, nationalisation =/= subsidy. Presumably we'll continue to subsidise railways as we do now (and we do a lot) but the difference will be that the profits as well as the costs will be nationalised.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarah G
Shipmate
# 11669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
On the otherhand, if Labour move towards the right in order to get elected the result would be to further normalise right-wing policies within the UK. If left-wing policies (running the railways/utilities efficiently for the public benefit, providing quality free education to all, quality free health care, care for those in need ...) become increasingly marginalised and right-wing policies (unnecessary immigration control, privatisation of services to increase profits for the private sector, cutting services to those in need ...) become "mainstream" then those reforms we're seeking to defend will be eroded just as surely - just probably a bit slower.
Alan, it's not about the policies. Those of us interested in politics find it difficult to understand just how very different we are from the majority who just don't follow politics.
To take a simple example, Theresa May has been repeating “strong and stable leadership” at every opportunity, ad nauseam. Yet only 15% of a representative sample recognised it. It needs to be understood- most people know very little about policies.
There is a great deal of research about how people make up their mind to vote, and it's which party they usually identify with, what their views of the leaders are and which they think would most competently handle the major issues. Policies are only a limited part of the mix.
If Labour continues to follow a left wing narrative, what will not happen is that The People will be won over by the brilliance of the arguments in favour of radical policies. We now know they won't buy that.
Labour will be marginalised further, and the Tories free to do what they like in the absence of a credible opposition.
We need a Labour government next time around- and you win elections from the centre.
Posts: 514 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
We need a Labour government next time around- and you win elections from the centre.
For the reasons you've given, I don't think being in the centre is that important.
A left-wing Labour party that presented itself as competent and offered a strong economic narrative could I think win elections even if it weren't coming from the centre. Especially if it were able to tie that in to a narrative of a Tory government that was dithering about such as the present one.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
Yep, you can't have it both ways. Either policy isn't important or you can only win from the centre. Not both. Is Corbyn the ideal front man? No. Is there anyone better available? No. Time to get on with selling the best we've got.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Dafyd: quote:
A left-wing Labour party that presented itself as competent and offered a strong economic narrative could I think win elections...
And this is the problem, right here. Whatever message the Labour Party is trying to get across is spun by a hostile media. Even the BBC (allegedly neutral) is getting into the act - an ostensibly well-balanced story about one of his campaign visits yesterday was illustrated with a picture taken from near ground-level showing his hand reaching out for the camera. He was probably just waving his hands around as he spoke, like most politicians do, but the subtext was clearly 'Labour is out to grab your money'.
A picture is worth a thousand words. Well-played, BBC.
Meanwhile the Tories are busy decreeing that there are 'boy jobs and girl jobs' and trying to take us back to the 1950s, and somehow this is all perfectly OK. Strong and Stable Leadership, is there honey still for tea, and all that.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Meanwhile the Tories are busy decreeing that there are 'boy jobs and girl jobs' and trying to take us back to the 1950s, and somehow this is all perfectly OK. Strong and Stable Leadership, is there honey still for tea, and all that.
Let's look at he 1950's then: could a woman be prime minister then? Heck very few ministers were and for that matter had been women.
As for "Strong and stable" leaders we had, amongst others, Churchill and Eden. Churchill suffered a stroke in 1953 but struggled on for two more years to be succeeded by Sir Anthony Eden, best known for the Suez misadventure which broke his health.
I suppose honey was off ration by then, if you could find any.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
This Election is one of the stranger ones in recent history and the only talking point for most is how few seats Corbyn will be left with on the morning of June 9th.
A media that is based entrepreneurial principles, (or lack of principles), is not going to go easy on Labour Party moved to the Left. Electoral reverse psychology is the only thing that can save Labour from humiliation.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
We need a Labour government next time around- and you win elections from the centre.
I think this is a myth - for complicated reasons. Perhaps it's more accurate to say that at the moment 'everyone knows' that you win elections from the centre and at some point the newspapers may or may not present you as the centre (which at the moment is done by presenting your opponent as of the radical left).
So a plan to cap energy prices is portrayed as the coming of the Bolsheviks one moment, but then passed on without much comment the next.
In general, a lot of the current manifesto policies are popular with the majority of people:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/poll-shows-people-love-labours-10404216
Does that make them more or less centre? At the same time there are a number of policies pushed by the Tories (fox hunting) that are fairly unpopular with the country at large but are more directed at getting out the vote of a particular niche.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, in oldskool language, the centre is a floating signifier. In the old joke, if you want to get to X, I wouldn't start from here.
There are plenty of current examples - the energy price cap being the most obvious, labelled Marxist under Miliband by the right-wing.
Another one is nationalization - seen as hard left by some, but of course, Bush did it after the crash.
Even the term 'hard left' floats around, meaning pretty much nothing at all.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I missed out the bit where chris stiles talks about being presented as the centre. This is the crux of it, isn't it? The centre is a kind of self-presentation or other-presentation, but then most political labels are. The interesting thing is which position you are in, when you make that pronouncement.
Metacommunication is a killer, eh?
[ 12. May 2017, 11:00: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
We need a Labour government next time around- and you win elections from the centre.
For the reasons you've given, I don't think being in the centre is that important.
I think that (in most cases) elections are won by winning the centre. That doesn't mean you need to be in the centre to win. Most parties have a relatively small core vote who will support them come hell or high water. Almost by definition that is insufficient to win outright (otherwise that party would always win), There is a very much larger group of people who will potentially switch alliegence, and to win an election you need to convince enough of them to vote for you. This group sit between the extremes presented by different parties (neither particularly left or right, up or down), so it's not unreasonable to call them the centre - and they're the people who need to be won over.
But, by definition, the centre is a very fluid place - they like some policies from one party, and othre policies from another. It's a place where identity is difficult to form, and even harder to maintain. It's a place to follow the crowd, not somewhere that's a natural place to lead from. What the centre seems to respond to are calls from the edges "come over this way" rather than the edges moving into the centre. The challenge isn't to be in the centre to win, it's to a) not be so far from the centre that the "come over here" is unheard and b) to present your position as somewhere stable from which you can lead people forward, coupled with c) that you are strong enough to do that leading.
There's a real possibility that Jeremy Corbyn is now too far from that centre ground for his message to make it through. Which wouldn't be a problem if those closer to the centre faithfully relayed the message - but they aren't doing that. And, added to which Corbyn doesn't come across as a strong leader, and the divisions in his party make the ground he stands on shaky. All the while, the far right is repeating the mantra "strong and stable", highlighting the relatively weak and shaky opposition.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
FWIW my opinion (and that is all it is) is that people rarely switch from party to party. Generally a change in a party's fortune is caused by people voting for a party having not voted for them (or anyone else) in the previous election, or staying at home instead of voting. I agree there are exceptions, such as UKIP and the rise of the LibDem vote but the former was a single-issue campaign while the latter was a sustained rise over more than 25 years.
If Labour loses many seats it will probably be caused by their supporters staying at home and Tory voters turning out when they might not have done before. OTOH, the best hope the LibDems have is that some who deserted them in 2015 (especially former students who were very angry) now returning having realised that they moderated the nastier Tory policies in the coalition years.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
Our area is made up of constituencys whereby if the Lib-Dems do well it will be at the Tory expense. That is reverse situation of how they stole it in 2015.
If voters return to the Lib-dems in droves it will only be an exercise in tit for tat. The real crunch is what proportion of Labour voters switch to Tory. Having said that the one thing May is keen to avoid is casual Toryites staying at home because they think the whole thing is a done deal.
The really big question mark is the mood of the Electorate. Is it still simmering post-Referendum or has, as DC hopes, the poison been drawn?
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343
|
Posted
The problem is not with Labour's manifesto. It is that the ordinary voter looks at the public image of Jeremy Corbyn (and more particularly those around him) and do not much care for what they see.
--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'
Posts: 486 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
I've seen much of the Labour Party manifesto before: it is an expanded version of the manifesto that appeared in our school mock election of 1970 - and that didn't win either.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
In other news, the Tory battle bus is the resprayed remain campaign bus - we know this because people have compared photos of the license plates. Is this irony ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
TurquoiseTastic
Fish of a different color
# 8978
|
Posted
Question: why do the Lib Dems appear to be tanking? Polls showing 8-11%, only a little ahead of UKIP.
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Question: why do the Lib Dems appear to be tanking? Polls showing 8-11%, only a little ahead of UKIP.
c50% of the population are tribally Labour or Tory and would vote for a pigs bladder on a stick if it sported a rosette of the appropriate colour.
Among the rest the Lib Dems were tainted by coalition, particularly tuition fees, Mr Farron doesn't get much airtime and hasn't really cut through with the public.
Also Mrs May and Brexit are currently popular. This will undoubtedly change at some point but not before June 8.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
The problem is not with Labour's manifesto. It is that the ordinary voter looks at the public image of Jeremy Corbyn (and more particularly those around him) and do not much care for what they see.
A very prescient comment. The new head of Corbyn's election campaign, Andrew Murray, left the Communist Party only last December to join Labour. While at the Communist Party he declared 'solidarity' with 'People's Korea'.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
So in the meantime, the official version of the Labour party manifesto is out, featuring most of what was in the leaked version with the addition of also re-nationalising the water industry.
- Scrap student tuition fees
- Nationalisation of England's nine water companies.
- Re-introduce the 50p rate of tax on the highest earners (above £123,000)
- Income tax rate 45p on £80,000 and above
- More free childcare, expanding free provisions for two, three and four year olds
- Guarantee triple lock for pensioner incomes
- End to zero hours contracts
- Hire 10,000 new police officers, 3,000 new firefighters
- Moves to charge companies a levy on salaries above £330,000
- Extend high speed rail link HS2 to Scotland
- Build a new Brighton main line for the SouthEast
- Deliver rail electrification "including in Wales and the South West".
About as far away as you can get from most of the policies of the current government I think.
So apart from scrapping tuition fees, they also plan to have maintenance grants as well. Which I must say would be a winner for me if it they did that on day one, as we are about to pack a second child off to uni. Even if they took their time and only ditched fees in second and subsequent years it would save us a lot. But maybe it would be a cut off not affecting any existing students. Although I seem to recall in 2015 election Milliband had it as a day one policy.
[Edit for atrocious spelling error]
[ 16. May 2017, 14:55: Message edited by: lowlands_boy ]
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
You have to say that Mrs May has carried out a brilliant coup by absorbing UKIP voters, I don't know how many. She doesn't need to worry about Labour voters voting Tory, it's in the bag.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
How bad is it when the only joy one can derive from May is that at least she is not Trump?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
The Tories really have played a blinder since 2010. Took Clegg in then pinched most of the Lib-dem seats of him 5 years later. Called a Referendum to appease a shift to the extreme right, now brings the waywards back safely into the Fold.
Mrs may appears to be walking on air and enjoying one of the sweetest extended honeymoons ever granted to an unelected Leader. One has to wonder what can possibly go wrong for her and her Party in the years ahead.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
And the Scottish Ref too. (and in the EU referendum they've dashed nearly managed to leave Labour holding the bomb as well as Ukip)
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
One has to wonder what can possibly go wrong for her and her Party in the years ahead.
Tons can go wrong for the UK - loss of labour supply through idiotic immigration controls, loss of global influence through Brexit, ongoing austerity strangling the economy, trade barriers further strangling the economy, people in desperate need going without the welfare they need ... But, the Tories will be OK for at least another 5 years. And, that's all that counts, winning this round of the game.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Oh, but what damage will be done in those 5 years. Coupled with the 4 more years in the US, the world will not be in a better place at the end of this.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
Looking at the party manifestos, I am struck by that fact that:
1. Multiple major parties pledge to end homelessness. Here in the US, where, I grant, homelessness was not a large phenomenon until large numbers of mentally ill people were deinstitutionalized in the 1960s without the transitional housing and care they were promised, such a promise could never be kept, and would probably not be made by a conservative party anyway.
2. The Tory manifesto wants compulsory ID for voting. In the US, such laws are strongly opposed by the left because many people here do not have government issued ID, and they tend to be disproportionately people of color and/or poor. Is any of this the case in the UK?
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ian Climacus
Liturgical Slattern
# 944
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Whatever message the Labour Party is trying to get across is spun by a hostile media. Even the BBC (allegedly neutral) is getting into the act...
I'm wondering about this. I am reading about it, in left leaning sources admittedly. Has it been the case for a while that major news sources are pro Conservative, as some of ours are here, or is it primarily because of the person of Corbyn?
Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Whatever message the Labour Party is trying to get across is spun by a hostile media. Even the BBC (allegedly neutral) is getting into the act...
I'm wondering about this. I am reading about it, in left leaning sources admittedly. Has it been the case for a while that major news sources are pro Conservative, as some of ours are here, or is it primarily because of the person of Corbyn?
An overwhelming majority of the print media is pro-tory, and the broadcast media takes its clues about what is news and where the "centre" is from the papers. There are some non-tory papers, but their sympathies lie more with the lib dems (Guardian, Independent). The only Labour papers are The Mirror (and they're on the anti-Corbyn side of the Labour divide) and The Morning Star (which until the collapse of the USSR was indirectly funded by the soviet embassy).
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
2. The Tory manifesto wants compulsory ID for voting. In the US, such laws are strongly opposed by the left because many people here do not have government issued ID, and they tend to be disproportionately people of color and/or poor. Is any of this the case in the UK?
ID cards have been a point of debate in politics for many years. They were actually introduced by the Labour government in 2005, but implementation had not been completed before the whole scheme was scrapped under the Cameron government in 2010. The interesting thing is it's yet another reversal of the position of David Cameron (who opposed ID cards) and picking up what had been Labour policy.
In regard to voting, the arguments are basically the same as in the US. There's no evidence of voter fraud that ID cards would reduce, and the cost of obtaining ID cards would penalise the poor (though I'm not sure there's as strong a correlation with voting preference as in the US). I think it's just there because the Tories have repeatedly rejected compulsory ID cards to counter crimes associated with identity theft, but a former Home Secretary values them for national security - and, knows that the public do not want to live in a police state under constant surveillance and letting the security services check everyone's ID.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
The Voter ID proposals are very likely to be an implementation of Sir Eric Pickles' recent report, which was well-received in government. Sir Eric didn't call for ID cards but for the use of existing forms of ID to help prove identity. At present you probably need more ID to borrow a library book than you do to vote.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mikey mikey:
Satire it may be, and arguably blasphemous, but this really puts things into perspective. Vicars daughter, indeed.
https://twitter.com/Tory__Jesus
I don't think that is technically blasphemous. What the pictures and captions are doing is marking out how much of the rhetoric politicians use is incompatible with what Jesus actually said.
The left, though, is not as immune from a similar exercise as it fondly imagines.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mikey mikey
Apprentice
# 17383
|
Posted
I agree. The "progressive Left" is fiercly anti-religious in varying degrees, depending on whether they might be open to accusations of racism/religious intolerance. Having said that, the Christian Right in America probably do more to damage the reputation of Christians than the so-called "politically correct".
--------------------
Thank youo St. Jude
Posts: 13 | Registered: Oct 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
The left, though, is not as immune from a similar exercise as it fondly imagines.
Sure, though they aren't as tied to notions of God and Country in the same way that the Right is.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
The Voter ID proposals are very likely to be an implementation of Sir Eric Pickles' recent report, which was well-received in government. Sir Eric didn't call for ID cards but for the use of existing forms of ID to help prove identity. At present you probably need more ID to borrow a library book than you do to vote.
This was actually introduced in Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland there are historic concerns about voter suppression and, to avoid this, after their pilot scheme, they introduced a free ID card which one could acquire if one was not in possession of a driving licence or a passport. The Government have made no mention of any such thing which leads me to suspect, they are not bothered if it decreases turnout.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
...which is odd really, as quite a lot of older people don't have passports and at least some of them (my mother-in-law, for example) don't have driving licences either. Evidently the Conservative Party thinks it is worth disenfranchising these people to prevent poor people from voting.
Perhaps library cards could be added to the list of acceptable IDs. Of course, that will only help urban voters who are within easy reach of a library; rural libraries are few and far between after all the cutbacks.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
The Voter ID proposals are very likely to be an implementation of Sir Eric Pickles' recent report, which was well-received in government. Sir Eric didn't call for ID cards but for the use of existing forms of ID to help prove identity. At present you probably need more ID to borrow a library book than you do to vote.
What are the "existing forms of ID"? Driver's licenses? Others? Would a voter ID law require that the ID have a photo? That it come from the government (national? local?) What about people who have no such ID (as Alan Cresswell asserts) and who would have trouble getting one (due to poverty, frailty, etc.)? In the US we have some situations where people cannot get ID without a birth certificate, and because hospitals have burned down or lost records or simply because some poor elderly people born at home I would imagine never got one in the first place, getting a birth certificate may be impossible. Sometimes (in rural parts of the US) the nearest government office where someone could get an ID (assuming one can afford to) is at least a day's journey each way from where someone lives, and the homebound, caregivers of others, and others often cannot make the journey easily, if at all.
I would support voter ID laws if the government had the burden of finding all eligible voters, verifying their identity, and providing them with IDs free of charge. Absent this, I do not support such laws, especially when (here in the US), voter fraud is so rare that such laws are hardly justified.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
I don't have access to Pickles' report to hand, but I think he suggested a flexible system that included utility bills. Before the election was called there were plans to pilot the proposals.
While voter fraud is rare, there have been some high-profile cases recently (and there might be more given the difficulties in bringing an electoral fraud case to court). As a resident of an area hit by widespread voter fraud, I find myself very sympathetic to these proposals.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
The Voter ID proposals are very likely to be an implementation of Sir Eric Pickles' recent report, which was well-received in government. Sir Eric didn't call for ID cards but for the use of existing forms of ID to help prove identity. At present you probably need more ID to borrow a library book than you do to vote.
What are the "existing forms of ID"? Driver's licenses? Others? Would a voter ID law require that the ID have a photo?
At present, in the UK, you do not need ID to vote. Prior to an election everyone registered to vote will receive a voting card (which has your name and address, plus information about where your voting station is and how to cast your vote) - mine arrived on Wednesday. If you have this, you just turn up and hand it over and everything is fine. If not you can still vote, but may be asked to prove your name and address (but, probably won't be).
There are plenty of other times when you would need ID - to open a bank account, or access an account where you have lost your card, for example. Then if you have official photo id (passport, photo drivers license, or the one for under-25s to prove they're over 18 and can buy alcohol) that is much simpler. But, they you will often also need to produce other documents anyway - utility bills (which prove you live where you claim) for example. Given that not every one has an official photo id there must be forms of proof of identity that can be used in those circumstances.
As a form of electoral fraud impersonating another registered voter must be a very small occurance. Most polling stations are quiet enough that someone appearing several times to cast multiple votes would probably be noticed, eventually. So, the number of votes that could be cast fraudulently would be small. More prone to fraud, I expect, would be postal ballots (if these could be intercepted before they reach the genuine voter) or proxy votes (and, again, if someone turned up at a polling station claiming to be authorised to vote on behalf of more than 2 or 3 people there would be scrutiny of id, I'd hope).
I can see value in everyone have official photo-id, providing that id is secure and free. But, voter identification and voter fraud doesn't rank very high on the list of reasons why you should have it.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I don't have access to Pickles' report to hand, but I think he suggested a flexible system that included utility bills. Before the election was called there were plans to pilot the proposals.
He didn't call for anything particular beyond 'photographic and other forms of ID' (both of which are problematic). The only part of the UK where photographic ID is a requirement for voting is NI, and the cost of the Electoral ID Card is bourne by the government over there.
quote:
While voter fraud is rare, there have been some high-profile cases recently (and there might be more given the difficulties in bringing an electoral fraud case to court). As a resident of an area hit by widespread voter fraud, I find myself very sympathetic to these proposals.
The incidence of voter fraud is a fraction of a percent (certainly lower than the incidence of illegitimate spending on elections). The area in London most hit by this has been Tower Hamlets, and the forms of electoral fraud that were most egregious there were the sort that wouldn't have been stopped by voter ID laws anyway (and again were fairly small in scope).
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
The area in London most hit by this has been Tower Hamlets, and the forms of electoral fraud that were most egregious there were the sort that wouldn't have been stopped by voter ID laws anyway (and again were fairly small in scope).
Well, quite. Having fake voters turn up in person and vote is a slow and difficult method of electoral fraud. It's far easier to just control a big stack of postal votes.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
The incidence of voter fraud is a fraction of a percent (certainly lower than the incidence of illegitimate spending on elections). The area in London most hit by this has been Tower Hamlets, and the forms of electoral fraud that were most egregious there were the sort that wouldn't have been stopped by voter ID laws anyway (and again were fairly small in scope).
The incidence of voter fraud is very low as far as we know, but then low levels of conviction don't necessarily mean that there is low levels of fraud - because it is only normally noticed when some idiot literally attempts to stuff a ballot.
One might imagine it isn't so hard to vote twice in a British General Election. Some people are legitimately on the electoral register twice in different places, it is surely not beyond the bounds of possibility that they'd vote postal in one constituency and in person in another.
I have no idea how one would even go about checking whether this was happening unless one had a suspicion about a particular individual.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The incidence of voter fraud is very low as far as we know, but then low levels of conviction don't necessarily mean that there is low levels of fraud
Yes, so perhaps it would be prudent to get an idea of the scale of the problem before deciding to spend money solving it [the Electoral Commission best estimates are in a miniscule fraction of 1% and presumably they are best placed to know at present]
In the event I suspect what Callan says upthread is correct, it's a dogwhistle at best and they have no idea how they'd implement it or any plans to put anything like the NI system in place.
So at the very best this gets tacked onto some kind of national ID card. The likely worst - given the current economic forecasts following a hard brexit - it will be the Pickles proposal. It costs a not insignificant amount of money for a passport, not everyone drives, and not everyone is on a utility bill.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
