Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Original poster

To be shocked by plan to disenfranchise the poor.

196 replies

Fab39ish · 21/05/2017 10:33

Just seen a report on my facebook feed which suggests that the Government want to make it compulsory to provide photo ID to vote.
What happens to people who don't drive or have a passport?
Is there a national cheap photo ID card you can buy. But even so if you are poor maybe you won't be able to afford that?

OP posts:

littlehandcuffs · 21/05/2017 18:45

What a load of scaremongering rubbish : )

user1471545174 · 21/05/2017 18:47

If only we just had ID cards.

Fluffy24 · 21/05/2017 18:49

Shocked? Disenfranchised?

Rubbish, cards would be free and reduce fraud.

Original poster

Fab39ish · 21/05/2017 19:02

OK. So I was naive to believe The Independent, The Guardian and Huff Post.
Let's hope that is true.

OP posts:

LiviaDrusillaAugusta · 21/05/2017 19:08

No - it is naive to believe the left or the right wing press. Huff post is left wing as well and is no more reliable than any other media.

HelenaDove · 21/05/2017 19:39

I dont have a passport and i dont drive. The last time i went abroad was 1986.

JustAnotherPoster00 Ive seen that said too. If that control over the internet becomes a reality it will give them the ability to rewrite history and gaslight.

e.g The rhetoric over DLA and the fact that external medical assesments were needed because it was "too easy" to get. Well there have always been assessments for it DH had one in 1995. But they can lie and say there were no assesments back then. Easy to do as there was no internet.

Now it is all laid bare on social media. I think this is what they are objecting to. If this "control" is successful come 2037 we will have right wingers saying "Of course there were no unfair aessesments back in 2017 " and disabled people wont be able to refute it because the truth will be hidden by this control of what internet content people will see.

allegretto · 21/05/2017 20:09

allegretto, in which case surely you would support an argument for it being free.

Free or at least very cheap, yes. It is ridiculous that you would need a passport though. Almost everywhere has id cards. I have one (5 euros) and it is very useful.

IonaNE · 21/05/2017 21:32

Passports are expensive and a right faff to get hold of
I know exactly how much money and faff getting a passport involves because - wait for it - I have two. Yes, two valid passports. Yes, it is legal because I am a dual national. And this on top of a national ID card that also allows me to travel within the EU. And I also have
UK driving licence. Because I consider these things important.

Iona would you be happy to spend more than a weeks salary on a document which enabled you to vote but you had no use for otherwise?
Yes. Of course, not waking up and trying to sort it 6 weeks before a general election. If I am on JSA and have no passport now, I won't be able to vote. But if this is important for me then I know that in 4 years there will be general elections again. Can someone total up the cost of getting a passport now and calculate the weekly cost spread out to 208 weeks? OK, let's say 200, so the passport arrives 8 weeks before the next general elections.

And as for "no use otherwise" - people need to accept that in a country with no national ID cards a passport is far more than a document you use for travelling.

(And, while we are here: contrary to popular belief passports are not for travelling at all even when you are travelling . A passport is proof that there is a country in the world that will let you back in if you leave it [=the country that issued the passport]. Which is why other countries will let you in with it - a passport ensures that the other country won't be burdened with you forever once you've entered.)

Demesne · 21/05/2017 21:54

Yes, basically they want to stop the poor voting. Just as in the US; voter ID laws are thinly-veiled ways to stop black (Democrat) and poor (Democrat) people voting, by putting barrier after barrier in their way. If you even manage to wade through the bureaucracy, they just close the polling stations early, or put your nearest one 60 miles away.

Tory voters won't care. Tory voters don't think the poor should be allowed food, healthcare or education, they'd merrily deny them the vote.

Dawndonnaagain · 21/05/2017 22:12

Fucking feckless poor, not remembering to save up for a passport before an election, not prioritising their vote, even though they feel they may have a right to exercise it...

SophieGiroux · 21/05/2017 22:58

I went to vote one year and was told I couldn't as I had already. I most certainly had not but couldn't do anything about it. It's ridiculous that you only need to say someone's name and address to vote so at least ID would stop this.

Original poster

Fab39ish · 21/05/2017 23:04

Agree ID is an excellent idea. As long as there are options for those who do not have passports or driving licences etc.

OP posts:

MaryTheCanary · 22/05/2017 12:39

I'm not necessarily opposed to voter ID on principle, but as others have said, it is postal voting that we should be more concerned about, and stricter rules on voter ID may actually push more people towards postal voting. The more entrenched PV is as a norm, the harder it will be to crack down on fraud, and PV fraud really is an issue.

Husbands and older family members sometimes fill in votes for wives and younger family members. I've also heard of landlords and employers demanding that tenants and employees hand over ballots or send them mobile phone pictures of their ballot papers, threatening to kick them out or cause trouble if they do not.

The trouble is that the elderly also tend to like postal votes, so the Tories don't want to rock the boat and make PV harder. >:(

HardcoreLadyType · 22/05/2017 13:36

Iona, unlike big dogs, big televisions, cigarettes and alcohol, voting is not a luxury.

In a true democracy, it is a right.

nocake · 22/05/2017 15:22

Voter fraud is not a problem so why introduce a solution? Seriously... 51.4 million votes cast in 2015. 26 allegations of fraud relating to in person voting (that ID would tackle). I'll let you work out the percentage.

Given that this won't tackle voter fraud (because it doesn't really exist) there must be another reason for the policy.

BelleTheSheepdog · 22/05/2017 15:27

Voter fraud is a problem in some areas.

Belfastbap · 22/05/2017 15:36

Vote early vote often was the slogan in certain parts of Northern Ireland and I know family members who fraudulently voted in dead relatives names. Hence the ID requirement.

LurkingHusband · 22/05/2017 16:21

Voter fraud is not a problem so why introduce a solution?

Oh, really ?

www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/birmingham-vote-fraud-still-happening-7229359

CormorantDevouringTime · 22/05/2017 16:56

The Birmingham case that was proved involved postal vote fraud on an epic scale. The only source we have for personation fraud also being a problem is John Hemming, who I wouldn't trust if he told me two plus two was four.

LiviaDrusillaAugusta · 22/05/2017 17:07

Probably best not to mention JH - wasn't there a total shitstorm about that on here?

OlennasWimple · 22/05/2017 20:36

Livia - he's a banned poster now...

Electoral fraud also a problem in Tower Hamlets, where the mayor was removed from office because the poll was so badly rigged in his favour. (This is also the place where a popular polling station was moved to a traffic island in the middle of a busy main road - Republicans aren't the only ones who know how to put up hurdles to democracy)

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8