Westministenders: A New Approach? No chance.

[RedToothBrush]

Next week we will have a new PM. He will be called Boris Johnson unless something very odd has happened.

His first 72 hours will be 'interesting' especially if today's events are anything to go by.

His Cabinet is sure to be a horror show. It was noticable who abstained today - they don't think they will be in a Johnson Cabinet and clearly don't want to be.

To move forward Johnson must be able to survive a rebellion and a Queen's speech before now and 31st October.

And be able to unit his party in order to find a way forward.

And whilst parliament has voted to block proroguing parliament, it could still be dissolved if there is a vote of no confidence.

And what happens if Johnson loses a vote? Will he manage to become PM? Will there be a GE.

All the signs are that next week is going to be a hell of a ride.

Enjoy your weekend.

There's also the fact that a sheaf of postal votes at a property is also a valuable commodity.

If we lived in a country whose electoral system hadn't been characterised by a senior judge as "shaming a banana republic" I'd be happy to be ignored on this one. But we don't. So I'm not.

www.theguardian.com/society/2005/apr/04/localgovernment.politics

Responding to an earlier refusal from the government to overhaul the postal voting rules he said: "Anybody who has sat through the case I have just tried and listened to evidence of electoral fraud that would disgrace a banana republic would find this statement surprising."

There is also the distinct possibility that controlling partners might take control of their partners votes as well - which I have seen no evidence of any mechanism to prevent.

In Estonia they seem to manage very well with online voting. Maybe that should be explored. However, I'd still be concerned about men controlling their partners' votes in some cases, it would have to be set up in quite a clever way to avoid that.

It's all about trust, innit ?

The less trust any of us have in our electoral system the less legitimacy it has. Which is how revolutions start. For gods sake, look at the emotions being whipped up amongst people who did have a vote. Imagine how much more febrile things might be if they had less trust in the system ?

My biggest worry is that discussions like this will be used to crowbar electronic voting through - which I would trust even less than postal voting. And I'm a techie. (Actually it would be because I'm a techie).

But even setting aside the obvious weaknesses in postal voting, it amazes me how insecure voting in person is.

If I had a conversation with my neighbour which revealed he wasn't bothering to vote, I could then pop down to the polling station, give his name and address and vote without anyone checking my identity. As a man, I wonder if I would be challenged if I gave my wife's name at a polling station...

But even setting aside the obvious weaknesses in postal voting, it amazes me how insecure voting in person is.

All terribly British, isn't it ?

But at least once you've havea person that has dragged their arse to a polling station, it should be the work of a moment to establish identity and that's that. It's not paradigm changing.

The funniest thing, is having an Italian DF, ID cards aren't controversial chez Rossetti. They're quite a sensible idea. The main problem we had was the nuLabour fetish with supersizing everything and turning a mundane administrative item into an aircraft carrier for each citizen. Thank goodness they were stopped - just look at the track record of UK IT projects.

My grumble with ID cards comes with the law you need to have with them saying the police can stop anyone anytime anyplace and demand "ID please". Which is a total inversion of the current situation.

I'm far more hard line than DG re postal voting - this current system disenfranchises some women and in certain areas gives a few men the power to wield hundreds of votes between them

imo, postal voting for the able-bodied should be the exception and there should be documented justification, annual renewal & hecks

The current system is very unsatisfactory and too open to fraud, as that judge said

Thursday elections suit Parliament, but don't fit the lives of ordinary working people
We should look at weekend voting - with polling stations open say 8am - 10 pm on both Saturday + Sunday

I'm against moving to online voting and voting machines, because of the dangers of hacking, especially in a narrowly fought election
Pencil & paper is still the most secure system atm

I agree that Thursday voting is an archaic tradition.

Also, almost all our EU partners manage to have a mandatory ID system, without a police state

Labour attempted to put a ridiculous amount of data on;
we should look at other systems within the EU and see what could work for us

After Brexit has been resolved though, because our public services probably cannot cope with another big change atm

As if by magic ...

www.theregister.co.uk/2019/07/19/gov_asks_public_how_to_solve_digital_identity/

Fresh out of ideas on how to crack the problem of digital identity, the UK government has put out a consultation asking what the hell it should do next.

(contd)

Not really sure why they are going to waste public money on a consultation they have fuck all intention of using ? (see also IR35)

I'm sure in the next few years someone will do a big study to see how we should change the voting system. It will take a long time, carefully selecting the test demographic, carefully gauging the ages, race, sex, economic background, health, working situations etc of the people they test, different locations; rural, urban, suburban. All the different elections; local, general, European (), by elections too. Using face recognition, blood group, iris recognition, dna profile, online voting, phone voting, texting, voting by Aldiss lamp, proxy etc etc etc.

Then they'll decide, after great expense and effort, man hours etc to keep it as it is.

Also, almost all our EU partners manage to have a mandatory ID system, without a police state

You've managed to state the answer in that statement, really. They just aren't British enough ....

We already have a passport and identity service.

Just a simple tweak like some US states to have a non-drivers driving license would pretty much fit the bill. Different colour and free. That's it.

The only other non change is police still need "reasonable suspicion" (a bit more than "for the lolz") to request someone account for themselves. Otherwise we'll just see institutional racism perpetuated everymore.

The problem with that is it's far too simple, and nowhere near bursting with juicy tenders for the likes of Capita, ATOS, Serco and whoever else is sucking Tory party cock at the moment.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49048431

The founder of the youth-focused pro-Brexit campaign group BeLeave has won his appeal against a £20,000 fine imposed by the elections regulator

(contd)

Voting in person has a proven almost non existent level of fraud - even with the lack of ID checks.

Postal votes have been abused many times and should never be the default.

Electronic voting works well for many organisations (so long as it is done to the standards of the electoral commission)

I also quite like advance ballots - where you cast your vote into a sealed box at a local government office during the week before polling day (used in parts of the USA)

But until we have politicians who are not lying toads its all pretty academic

Having blood group on an ID card could be useful for emergency situations although in France you usually have a 'health card' so it would be more logical to have it on there.

Electronic voting works well for many organisations (so long as it is done to the standards of the electoral commission)

NO NO NO.

Pen/paper voting leaves a permanent record that can be physically verified.

Whilst it is possible to create an electronic system to achieve something of a similar standard, it's not possible in the UK - nor will it ever be possible. Now I realise it's going to get some people backs up to use absolutes like "never", so I'll qualify that by saying when we've had the next 20 UK-wide IT projects delivered on time, on budget and working, I'll review my stance. Until then - and I'm sorry for being robust - fuck off with your voting "app" which will have no oversight, no audit trail, and any number of bugs that compromise it's integrity.

DGR
I know that things like IR35 and MTD prove that the government is physically incapable of setting up such projects
but other organisations are.

I have participated in electronic voting where the polls were open all over the world.
After voting closed we each got an electronic confirmation of how our vote had been counted.
The organisation still use it I believe (I am no longer a member)

I also quite like advance ballots - where you cast your vote into a sealed box at a local government office during the week before polling day (used in parts of the USA)

Sounds like a good idea, but again, far too simple, not enough pork for the big boys to siphon off.

There's a fucktonne of zero-to-low cost initiatives that could make modern life a lot easier for everyone, if we thought about it. And there have been for years. But I've spend the better part of 30 years having to put up with this every fucking day, in every fucking job while reading newspapers (and now websites) about the government doing the same.

My DH who thought a postal vote would be more convenient has had his not counted twice they thought his signature didn’t match the sample he’s given. At least if you vote in person there is little room for it to go wrong.

I’m pretty sure someone did research into Weekend voting and concluded it would not increase the turnout. I’ll see if I can find it.

I really wouldn’t trust E-voting. We don’t need it anyway, can see if you had a population 10 times the size it might make more sense.

Postal votes are wide open to abuse. Most simply in households where the "head of household" will insist everyone votes for his, and it is usually his, preference.
It used to be the case you needed a good reason for a postal vote and this rule was relaxed. Not a good idea.

Oops should have read the thread, I see my points about postal voting already made-apologies!

Pen/paper voting leaves a permanent record that can be physically verified.

That's why they give you a pencil rather than a pen. :)

My DH who thought a postal vote would be more convenient has had his not counted twice they thought his signature didn’t match the sample he’s given. At least if you vote in person there is little room for it to go wrong.

Great point. Postal votes are like a really unreliable taxi firm: convenient on the occasions they actually show up, but leaving you in the lurch all the times when they don't.

I have participated in electronic voting where the polls were open all over the world. After voting closed we each got an electronic confirmation of how our vote had been counted.

So a system open for abuse by employers and controlling partners, religions, and anyone else who feels a need to "check" how you voted.

You know I said NO NO NO ?

Make that NO NO NO NO NO NO NO now.

Fuck that for a game of soldiers.

Remember, we have an electoral service which AS IS managed to fuck up the rights of people to vote. Imagine how much more a mess they could make of it, square it, and then double it for good measure. That's my confidence in UK plc electronic voting.