Tories: "I am altering the deal, pray I don't alter it any further."
Scotland: "This deal is getting worse all the time..."
Scotland leaving and joining the EU. I didn’t think that was a real possibility. I thought once you were in the UK, you were in for life blood in blood out, like Texas. They always threaten it but never do it because they don’t want to get their ass kicked.
Here in the states, I just got my ID renewed, to the standard that will be required for air travel starting next year. It required a birth certificate (had to send away for it, required some specific knowledge about my parents and place of birth, and a fee), a previous tax form, a voter ID card (side note: not actually valid ID for voting), my previous ID, and a pay stub (who even gets those any more). Total fees was about $75, double if I had needed it expedited. Oh, and about half a weekday of my time at the DMV, costing me a full vacation day. Hurdles I could clear, but seriously, fuck that noise.
I'm all on board for a federal UK, indeed I feel like it was promised in 2014 for staying in the union. I don't think it'll ever happen though because it doesn't benefit the big two parties so neither of them are interested.
Tories: "I am altering the deal, pray I don't alter it any further."
Scotland: "This deal is getting worse all the time..."
Scotland leaving and joining the EU. I didn’t think that was a real possibility. I thought once you were in the UK, you were in for life blo od in blood out, like Texas. They always threaten it but never do it because they don’t want to get their ass kicked.
Ireland was once part of the UK, not just the Northern bit.
Here in the states, I just got my ID renewed, to the standard that will be required for air travel starting next year. It required a birth certificate (had to send away for it, required some specific knowledge about my parents and place of birth, and a fee), a previous tax form, a voter ID card (side note: not actually valid ID for voting), my previous ID, and a pay stub (who even gets those any more). Total fees was about $75, double if I had needed it expedited. Oh, and about half a weekday of my time at the DMV, costing me a full vacation day. Hurdles I could clear, but seriously, fuck that noise.
It's absolutely voter suppression.
The RealID act while it is being used for voter suppression, It predates those efforts and is an anti-terrorism requirement.
And you can fly domestically without any identification. It’s just a bitch to do. Although they are saying that will change in 2020, but it is only going to take 1 stranded WASP who got robbed during vacation who is stranded in Tampa with a sob story and a news story for there to be an alternative verification exception to be put in.
Or so he says over an election where he is primarily competing against the Lib Dems (and Brexit).
"Are you going to quit?" is a stupid question to ask ahead of an election. Answer is no.
[edit]It's not even no here, Sky asked him if he would quit and he said it was a stupid question (or at least he wouldn't answer it... because it's a stupid question).
The British Government is expected to announce plans to make everyone show a driver’s license or passport in order to be able to vote. Story from the editor of The Sunday Telegraph.
Needless to say, this disenfranchises anyone who struggles to afford a passport and who doesn’t have access to a driver’s license. I’ll be very interested to see the analytics on the impact this would have on an election or second referendum in the coming days.
If they're importing the idea from the US and Canada, look forward to an incredible amount of panicky rhetoric from now on where the right takes massive, widespread, organized voter fraud as an absolute given in need of Urgent And Serious Solutions, but for some weird reason is unable to back up the claim with anything other than "this one person voted in the wrong district last year!" anecdotes.
Jeremy Corbyn has refused to say whether he would stand down as Labour leader if the party lost the next general election.
Earlier this week, shadow chancellor and close ally John McDonnell said he "can't see" how Mr Corbyn could stay on in such a scenario.
But the leader told Sky News he expected to win the election, and would not answer "hypothetical" questions.
Yeah, he won't jump until he's pushed.
I mean no one says they'll resign before the election is even held. That's preemptively admitting defeat and is political suicide.
It also gives a perverse incentive to people who are on-board with Labour but really not on board with Corbyn to vote against them in hopes of getting rid of him. Not making that an obvious option is a good idea.
The British Government is expected to announce plans to make everyone show a driver’s license or passport in order to be able to vote. Story from the editor of The Sunday Telegraph.
Needless to say, this disenfranchises anyone who struggles to afford a passport and who doesn’t have access to a driver’s license. I’ll be very interested to see the analytics on the impact this would have on an election or second referendum in the coming days.
If they're importing the idea from the US and Canada, look forward to an incredible amount of panicky rhetoric from now on where the right takes massive, widespread, organized voter fraud as an absolute given in need of Urgent And Serious Solutions, but for some weird reason is unable to back up the claim with anything other than "this one person voted in the wrong district last year!" anecdotes.
Definitely, I also think they've not but a lot of thought into it other than copying the Republican playbook (which seems to happen fairly often), I'm not even sure it'll hit the right demographics for them either.
The US plan works because of the bizarre way the DMVs are physical places that state level government has some control over. Restricting offices doesn't work as well when you just send everything by post to Swansea anyway, or get it done in a now privately controlled Post Office. 76% of UK citizens have passports too, compared to 36% of US ones.
OAPs getting bus passes is a thing here, and there's an suprisingly low age cut off where you didn't get a photocard driving ID. Wouldn't be surprised if this backfires as a voter supression tactic.
I'm plenty old enough that my first UK driving licence was just the paper one and didn't include a photocard - and was valid until the day before my 70th birthday.
House moves have meant needing to "upgrade" to the photocard to keep my address current, but I don't think there's been any other legal requirement to "upgrade". I could be wrong, though.
The British Government is expected to announce plans to make everyone show a driver’s license or passport in order to be able to vote. Story from the editor of The Sunday Telegraph.
Needless to say, this disenfranchises anyone who struggles to afford a passport and who doesn’t have access to a driver’s license. I’ll be very interested to see the analytics on the impact this would have on an election or second referendum in the coming days.
If they're importing the idea from the US and Canada, look forward to an incredible amount of panicky rhetoric from now on where the right takes massive, widespread, organized voter fraud as an absolute given in need of Urgent And Serious Solutions, but for some weird reason is unable to back up the claim with anything other than "this one person voted in the wrong district last year!" anecdotes.
Definitely, I also think they've not but a lot of thought into it other than copying the Republican playbook (which seems to happen fairly often), I'm not even sure it'll hit the right demographics for them either.
The US plan works because of the bizarre way the DMVs are physical places that state level government has some control over. Restricting offices doesn't work as well when you just send everything by post to Swansea anyway, or get it done in a now privately controlled Post Office. 76% of UK citizens have passports too, compared to 36% of US ones.
OAPs getting bus passes is a thing here, and there's an suprisingly low age cut off where you didn't get a photocard driving ID. Wouldn't be surprised if this backfires as a voter supression tactic.
Also the ones who voted for Brexit were primarily poor and uneducated...I don’t think this will suppress the voters they think.
+1
Options
jaziekBad at everythingAnd mad about it.Registered Userregular
I'm plenty old enough that my first UK driving licence was just the paper one and didn't include a photocard - and was valid until the day before my 70th birthday.
House moves have meant needing to "upgrade" to the photocard to keep my address current, but I don't think there's been any other legal requirement to "upgrade". I could be wrong, though.
does the paper license not have to be renewed every 10 years or so like the plastic one?
I'm plenty old enough that my first UK driving licence was just the paper one and didn't include a photocard - and was valid until the day before my 70th birthday.
House moves have meant needing to "upgrade" to the photocard to keep my address current, but I don't think there's been any other legal requirement to "upgrade". I could be wrong, though.
does the paper license not have to be renewed every 10 years or so like the plastic one?
Nope. It didn't back then, anyway. I've no idea if that requirement has actually changed since.
But I could sign that thing at the age of 17 and be good for the next 53 years with it, if I didn't change address.
I'm plenty old enough that my first UK driving licence was just the paper one and didn't include a photocard - and was valid until the day before my 70th birthday.
House moves have meant needing to "upgrade" to the photocard to keep my address current, but I don't think there's been any other legal requirement to "upgrade". I could be wrong, though.
does the paper license not have to be renewed every 10 years or so like the plastic one?
Nope. It didn't back then, anyway. I've no idea if that requirement has actually changed since.
But I could sign that thing at the age of 17 and be good for the next 53 years with it, if I didn't change address.
The British Government is expected to announce plans to make everyone show a driver’s license or passport in order to be able to vote. Story from the editor of The Sunday Telegraph.
Needless to say, this disenfranchises anyone who struggles to afford a passport and who doesn’t have access to a driver’s license. I’ll be very interested to see the analytics on the impact this would have on an election or second referendum in the coming days.
If they're importing the idea from the US and Canada, look forward to an incredible amount of panicky rhetoric from now on where the right takes massive, widespread, organized voter fraud as an absolute given in need of Urgent And Serious Solutions, but for some weird reason is unable to back up the claim with anything other than "this one person voted in the wrong district last year!" anecdotes.
Definitely, I also think they've not but a lot of thought into it other than copying the Republican playbook (which seems to happen fairly often), I'm not even sure it'll hit the right demographics for them either.
The US plan works because of the bizarre way the DMVs are physical places that state level government has some control over. Restricting offices doesn't work as well when you just send everything by post to Swansea anyway, or get it done in a now privately controlled Post Office. 76% of UK citizens have passports too, compared to 36% of US ones.
Even then documentary requirements can still disproportionately hit some groups they'd want hit, like younger or otherwise-newer voters. It doesn't have to be as blatant or widespread as Alabama's "we don't give photo IDs in majority-black counties" stunt to chop a couple of percentage points off voter turnout, and suppressing that even a little is going to help the current government-such-as-it-is.
It's kind of similar in Canada, where registration's automatic and the hoops for documentation aren't (usually) too rough, but a combination of tightening requirements for student voters based on FUD about voter fraud - combined with, well, actual fraud on the Conservatives' part - probably tipped the 2011 election into majority territory.
The anglosphere handwringing about ID's have always fascinated me, though people feel so strongly about it that it feels difficult to discuss.
Suffice to say, it is entirely possible to require ID's for a whole bunch of things without disenfranchising people to any noticeable degree. Sweden require photo ID when voting and we usually have around 90% turnout.
You need ID when visiting the doctor, opening a bank account (my first ID was also provided for free with my first bank account), buying alcohol, driving, taking university exams etc.
It's just something everybody have and everybody use.
The anglosphere handwringing about ID's have always fascinated me, though people feel so strongly about it that it feels difficult to discuss.
Suffice to say, it is entirely possible to require ID's for a whole bunch of things without disenfranchising people to any noticeable degree. Sweden require photo ID when voting and we usually have around 90% turnout.
You need ID when visiting the doctor, opening a bank account (my first ID was also provided for free with my first bank account), buying alcohol, driving, taking university exams etc.
It's just something everybody have and everybody use.
Such things require good faith efforts on the part of the government to make sure IDs are easily available and not prohibitively unaffordable. The unwillingness of the non-anglosphere to understand that non-social-democratic, less centralised states do not have the systems in place to ensure this, and are often not interested in providing them, has also always fascinated me.
The anglosphere handwringing about ID's have always fascinated me, though people feel so strongly about it that it feels difficult to discuss.
Suffice to say, it is entirely possible to require ID's for a whole bunch of things without disenfranchising people to any noticeable degree. Sweden require photo ID when voting and we usually have around 90% turnout.
You need ID when visiting the doctor, opening a bank account (my first ID was also provided for free with my first bank account), buying alcohol, driving, taking university exams etc.
It's just something everybody have and everybody use.
Such things require good faith efforts on the part of the government to make sure IDs are easily available and not prohibitively unaffordable. The unwillingness of the non-anglosphere to understand that non-social-democratic, less centralised states do not have the systems in place to ensure this, and are often not interested in providing them, has also always fascinated me.
I mean the US has enough paranoid fringe cases on both sides that we've long resisted any kind of national ID. The hodge podge of what came out of the RealID act was the best they could do after fricking 9/11. Now add in a bunch of people who see it as a tactical advantage to their "side" and it isn't going to happen over here.
The UK situation is different but as usual they're trying to adapt a successful bit of the Conservative franchise playbook to another location.
The anglosphere handwringing about ID's have always fascinated me, though people feel so strongly about it that it feels difficult to discuss.
Suffice to say, it is entirely possible to require ID's for a whole bunch of things without disenfranchising people to any noticeable degree. Sweden require photo ID when voting and we usually have around 90% turnout.
You need ID when visiting the doctor, opening a bank account (my first ID was also provided for free with my first bank account), buying alcohol, driving, taking university exams etc.
It's just something everybody have and everybody use.
Such things require good faith efforts on the part of the government to make sure IDs are easily available and not prohibitively unaffordable. The unwillingness of the non-anglosphere to understand that non-social-democratic, less centralised states do not have the systems in place to ensure this, and are often not interested in providing them, has also always fascinated me.
The interesting thing is that the government was fairly uninvolved with providing ID cards until fairly recently when it was required for schengen and EU. Before that it was mostly handled by the banks, so I guess we can thank capitalism for that one.
Of course the government did the heavy lifting of maintaining a database over all citizens, the information actually printed on the cards.
legal ID shouldn't be a barrier to voting, but there's a lot of political, social and historical reasons that right now, it is. Ironically, rejection/rollback of various wholesale socialist national programs is a part of why the UK doesn't have that sort of program in place. Regardless, right now there is simply no need for a lot of people to possess government issue photographic ID and so introducing it as a requirement without a) rolling out the process extremely slowly over decades and b) committing a huge amount of groundwork and expenditure is yes, going to end up disenfranchising people. Mostly those who already have to put up with a bunch of systemic failure and social exclusion, funny that.
The important thing to understand is that the claimed purpose is not the actual purpose, which is to disenfranchise and suppress "undesirable" demographics.
No one is saying that Voter ID can't be implemented, and after of ironing out the kinks, cost reduction, and it entering frequent use by banks, ticketing stations etc. It will likely become almost ubiquitous.
In 15 years time, people in their 20s and 30s will probably go "I don't understand what all the fuss was about", but in the modern political climate for the first 5 years all the "inconveniences" will likely suspiciously favour certain political parties - and THAT was what all the fuss was about.
The anglosphere handwringing about ID's have always fascinated me, though people feel so strongly about it that it feels difficult to discuss.
Suffice to say, it is entirely possible to require ID's for a whole bunch of things without disenfranchising people to any noticeable degree. Sweden require photo ID when voting and we usually have around 90% turnout.
You need ID when visiting the doctor, opening a bank account (my first ID was also provided for free with my first bank account), buying alcohol, driving, taking university exams etc.
It's just something everybody have and everybody use.
It's worth remembering this sentiment partly stems from the last time ID was seriously proposed in the UK. It was during the Blair/Bush era when the government were taking our rights away and lying about Iraq following 9/11. The skepticism didn't come from no where.
The anglosphere handwringing about ID's have always fascinated me, though people feel so strongly about it that it feels difficult to discuss.
Suffice to say, it is entirely possible to require ID's for a whole bunch of things without disenfranchising people to any noticeable degree. Sweden require photo ID when voting and we usually have around 90% turnout.
You need ID when visiting the doctor, opening a bank account (my first ID was also provided for free with my first bank account), buying alcohol, driving, taking university exams etc.
It's just something everybody have and everybody use.
It's worth remembering this sentiment partly stems from the last time ID was seriously proposed in the UK. It was during the Blair/Bush era when the government were taking our rights away and lying about Iraq following 9/11. The skepticism didn't come from no where.
But that was more legitimately oppressive. It was to make it easier for Law enforcement to track, find and verify who people were - rather than window dressing for voter suppression.
+2
Options
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
If ID cards were going to be handed out in cereal boxes the way they are in Scandinavian and EU bloc countries I'm sure there'd be far less "handwringing"
+1
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Oh, ID has been needed for Dutch elections forever. You are also required to be able to identify yourself to the police from ages 15 and up. You can get an ID-card or passport with an expiration date of 10 years at your local municipality. The cheapest option for a minor is €30 and €55 for an adult. You can vote with a recently expired ID I didn't realize the UK worked differently.
I guess its good that the UK is moving closer to the way things are done in other EU countries, eh? /s
While there's nothing inherently wrong with ID-ing yourself in order to vote, at least in the last 10 years or so the voter ID issue has typically revolved around 3 elements:
There's almost never any evidence of existing fraud where a new ID system would provide a clear benefit.
ID requirements are almost always proposed with a burden (cost, qualification, documentation, or just plain access to the ID office) that can be difficult for some segments to meet, making it likely that they wont bother to obtain a valid ID and therefore "opt out" of voting.
Voter ID requirements are almost always proposed by political groups (usually conservative) who would benefit from the segments in #2 having lower voter turnout.
It's almost always framed as "Party A wants to protect the integrity of voting, while Party B doesn't want them to" when the reality is almost always "Party A sees an opportunity to suppress votes to their advantage in the next few elections, while Party B doesn't want them to".
If it's cheap, easy to get, and can be obtained substantially before the next election for which it is required - as is the case for many countries who have been utilising Voter ID for some time - then you probably wouldn't hear too much about it.
The problem is that proposed introduction of Voter ID systems are often none of these, and there's usually an ulterior motive why they aren't.
For the record: ID has been required in Dutch elections since 2005. Before that you only needed to present the card ("oproepkaart") you got from the local government calling you to vote. It worked perfectly fine since the government knows where everybody lives and the card also lists the nearest polling station to your home and they expect you to show up there. The guy in charge of the station was allowed to require that you prove your identity in some way if there was doubt. (Most commonly if you want to vote far away from your home.) Afaik there was never any major fraud, since it would have to be very elaborate not to get immediately noticed.
You still have to present your card to vote. There is zero need for an ID and the only reason I'm ok with it is that the barriers to getting an ID are very low.
If ID cards were going to be handed out in cereal boxes the way they are in Scandinavian and EU bloc countries I'm sure there'd be far less "handwringing"
I don't know, I think there's an element like disarmed police where it's healthy that the Government generally trusts I am who I say am - and at worst gives me a few days to find what I need.
I've been pulled over for drink driving whilst driving my parent's car (I wasn't drinking, but my navigator had been and could only give me a vague description of a big tree by the road rather than the street name for the address of a friend's house), and whilst I was insured to drive the car I didn't have the details to hand. I then had 48hrs to send them information they needed to prove everything was all above board (admittedly at the time, in person at the local station).
If the police don't need this kind of information to trace a potentially stolen car, why bother adding the stress of having an official ID you need to have on your at all times? Especially if it's just to problem that doesn't exist - also interconnected data is not something we're lacking now, you'd have to almost try to live off the grid. Whole thing is just a security blanket for people who can't accept they might be in the wrong.
If ID cards were going to be handed out in cereal boxes the way they are in Scandinavian and EU bloc countries I'm sure there'd be far less "handwringing"
I don't know, I think there's an element like disarmed police where it's healthy that the Government generally trusts I am who I say am - and at worst gives me a few days to find what I need.
I've been pulled over for drink driving whilst driving my parent's car (I wasn't drinking, but my navigator had been and could only give me a vague description of a big tree by the road rather than the street name for the address of a friend's house), and whilst I was insured to drive the car I didn't have the details to hand. I then had 48hrs to send them information they needed to prove everything was all above board (admittedly at the time, in person at the local station).
If the police don't need this kind of information to trace a potentially stolen car, why bother adding the stress of having an official ID you need to have on your at all times? Especially if it's just to problem that doesn't exist - also interconnected data is not something we're lacking now, you'd have to almost try to live off the grid. Whole thing is just a security blanket for people who can't accept they might be in the wrong.
I don't know about the UK, but in the US not having a valid proof of insurance or (especially) driver's license on hand to show the officer is usually a finable offense, and most municipal police forces aren't going to let the chance to earn some money on traffic fines pass them by, even if the methods did exist for them to find out if you are telling the truth on your own (which they almost certainly don't.)
If ID cards were going to be handed out in cereal boxes the way they are in Scandinavian and EU bloc countries I'm sure there'd be far less "handwringing"
I don't know, I think there's an element like disarmed police where it's healthy that the Government generally trusts I am who I say am - and at worst gives me a few days to find what I need.
I've been pulled over for drink driving whilst driving my parent's car (I wasn't drinking, but my navigator had been and could only give me a vague description of a big tree by the road rather than the street name for the address of a friend's house), and whilst I was insured to drive the car I didn't have the details to hand. I then had 48hrs to send them information they needed to prove everything was all above board (admittedly at the time, in person at the local station).
If the police don't need this kind of information to trace a potentially stolen car, why bother adding the stress of having an official ID you need to have on your at all times? Especially if it's just to problem that doesn't exist - also interconnected data is not something we're lacking now, you'd have to almost try to live off the grid. Whole thing is just a security blanket for people who can't accept they might be in the wrong.
I don't know about the UK, but in the US not having a valid proof of insurance or (especially) driver's license on hand to show the officer is usually a finable offense, and most municipal police forces aren't going to let the chance to earn some money on traffic fines pass them by, even if the methods did exist for them to find out if you are telling the truth on your own (which they almost certainly don't.)
This is one reason why fines collected should not, in a properly functioning country, go to the local cops or the local municipality, but the central government (or provincial government).
I'm plenty old enough that my first UK driving licence was just the paper one and didn't include a photocard - and was valid until the day before my 70th birthday.
House moves have meant needing to "upgrade" to the photocard to keep my address current, but I don't think there's been any other legal requirement to "upgrade". I could be wrong, though.
does the paper license not have to be renewed every 10 years or so like the plastic one?
Nope. It didn't back then, anyway. I've no idea if that requirement has actually changed since.
But I could sign that thing at the age of 17 and be good for the next 53 years with it, if I didn't change address.
I have an EU-standard plastic driver's license with picture (of me 18 years ago) that is valid until the day I turn 100.
If ID cards were going to be handed out in cereal boxes the way they are in Scandinavian and EU bloc countries I'm sure there'd be far less "handwringing"
I don't know, I think there's an element like disarmed police where it's healthy that the Government generally trusts I am who I say am - and at worst gives me a few days to find what I need.
I've been pulled over for drink driving whilst driving my parent's car (I wasn't drinking, but my navigator had been and could only give me a vague description of a big tree by the road rather than the street name for the address of a friend's house), and whilst I was insured to drive the car I didn't have the details to hand. I then had 48hrs to send them information they needed to prove everything was all above board (admittedly at the time, in person at the local station).
If the police don't need this kind of information to trace a potentially stolen car, why bother adding the stress of having an official ID you need to have on your at all times? Especially if it's just to problem that doesn't exist - also interconnected data is not something we're lacking now, you'd have to almost try to live off the grid. Whole thing is just a security blanket for people who can't accept they might be in the wrong.
This can actually be a decent analogy. Because while you were allowed to do this, its safe to say not everyone gets that benefit of the doubt. Members of marginalized communities would be much more likely to have a less congenial interaction here and likely would have a similarly increased rate of unhelpful interactions at poll if they lacked proper ID when voting. Some of it wouldn't even be conscious but that wouldn't eliminate the potential impact. That, along with potential economic and access hurdles that those communities might face to gaining identification, is often the subtextual point of requiring it to vote.
Posts
It's absolutely voter suppression.
Ireland was once part of the UK, not just the Northern bit.
Can't fucking blame them can you, I'd run a mile
then walk 500 more
just to be the man who
And you can fly domestically without any identification. It’s just a bitch to do. Although they are saying that will change in 2020, but it is only going to take 1 stranded WASP who got robbed during vacation who is stranded in Tampa with a sob story and a news story for there to be an alternative verification exception to be put in.
Jeremy Corbyn dismisses resignation comments Yeah, he won't jump until he's pushed.
"Are you going to quit?" is a stupid question to ask ahead of an election. Answer is no.
[edit]It's not even no here, Sky asked him if he would quit and he said it was a stupid question (or at least he wouldn't answer it... because it's a stupid question).
I mean no one says they'll resign before the election is even held. That's preemptively admitting defeat and is political suicide.
If they're importing the idea from the US and Canada, look forward to an incredible amount of panicky rhetoric from now on where the right takes massive, widespread, organized voter fraud as an absolute given in need of Urgent And Serious Solutions, but for some weird reason is unable to back up the claim with anything other than "this one person voted in the wrong district last year!" anecdotes.
It also gives a perverse incentive to people who are on-board with Labour but really not on board with Corbyn to vote against them in hopes of getting rid of him. Not making that an obvious option is a good idea.
Definitely, I also think they've not but a lot of thought into it other than copying the Republican playbook (which seems to happen fairly often), I'm not even sure it'll hit the right demographics for them either.
The US plan works because of the bizarre way the DMVs are physical places that state level government has some control over. Restricting offices doesn't work as well when you just send everything by post to Swansea anyway, or get it done in a now privately controlled Post Office. 76% of UK citizens have passports too, compared to 36% of US ones.
OAPs getting bus passes is a thing here, and there's an suprisingly low age cut off where you didn't get a photocard driving ID. Wouldn't be surprised if this backfires as a voter supression tactic.
House moves have meant needing to "upgrade" to the photocard to keep my address current, but I don't think there's been any other legal requirement to "upgrade". I could be wrong, though.
Steam | XBL
does the paper license not have to be renewed every 10 years or so like the plastic one?
Nope. It didn't back then, anyway. I've no idea if that requirement has actually changed since.
But I could sign that thing at the age of 17 and be good for the next 53 years with it, if I didn't change address.
Steam | XBL
Interesting!
Even then documentary requirements can still disproportionately hit some groups they'd want hit, like younger or otherwise-newer voters. It doesn't have to be as blatant or widespread as Alabama's "we don't give photo IDs in majority-black counties" stunt to chop a couple of percentage points off voter turnout, and suppressing that even a little is going to help the current government-such-as-it-is.
It's kind of similar in Canada, where registration's automatic and the hoops for documentation aren't (usually) too rough, but a combination of tightening requirements for student voters based on FUD about voter fraud - combined with, well, actual fraud on the Conservatives' part - probably tipped the 2011 election into majority territory.
Suffice to say, it is entirely possible to require ID's for a whole bunch of things without disenfranchising people to any noticeable degree. Sweden require photo ID when voting and we usually have around 90% turnout.
You need ID when visiting the doctor, opening a bank account (my first ID was also provided for free with my first bank account), buying alcohol, driving, taking university exams etc.
It's just something everybody have and everybody use.
Such things require good faith efforts on the part of the government to make sure IDs are easily available and not prohibitively unaffordable. The unwillingness of the non-anglosphere to understand that non-social-democratic, less centralised states do not have the systems in place to ensure this, and are often not interested in providing them, has also always fascinated me.
I mean the US has enough paranoid fringe cases on both sides that we've long resisted any kind of national ID. The hodge podge of what came out of the RealID act was the best they could do after fricking 9/11. Now add in a bunch of people who see it as a tactical advantage to their "side" and it isn't going to happen over here.
The UK situation is different but as usual they're trying to adapt a successful bit of the Conservative franchise playbook to another location.
The interesting thing is that the government was fairly uninvolved with providing ID cards until fairly recently when it was required for schengen and EU. Before that it was mostly handled by the banks, so I guess we can thank capitalism for that one.
Of course the government did the heavy lifting of maintaining a database over all citizens, the information actually printed on the cards.
(past) Johnson was right about one thing, it's absolutely a poll tax.
Steam | XBL
In 15 years time, people in their 20s and 30s will probably go "I don't understand what all the fuss was about", but in the modern political climate for the first 5 years all the "inconveniences" will likely suspiciously favour certain political parties - and THAT was what all the fuss was about.
It's worth remembering this sentiment partly stems from the last time ID was seriously proposed in the UK. It was during the Blair/Bush era when the government were taking our rights away and lying about Iraq following 9/11. The skepticism didn't come from no where.
But that was more legitimately oppressive. It was to make it easier for Law enforcement to track, find and verify who people were - rather than window dressing for voter suppression.
For the record: ID has been required in Dutch elections since 2005. Before that you only needed to present the card ("oproepkaart") you got from the local government calling you to vote. It worked perfectly fine since the government knows where everybody lives and the card also lists the nearest polling station to your home and they expect you to show up there. The guy in charge of the station was allowed to require that you prove your identity in some way if there was doubt. (Most commonly if you want to vote far away from your home.) Afaik there was never any major fraud, since it would have to be very elaborate not to get immediately noticed.
You still have to present your card to vote. There is zero need for an ID and the only reason I'm ok with it is that the barriers to getting an ID are very low.
I don't know, I think there's an element like disarmed police where it's healthy that the Government generally trusts I am who I say am - and at worst gives me a few days to find what I need.
I've been pulled over for drink driving whilst driving my parent's car (I wasn't drinking, but my navigator had been and could only give me a vague description of a big tree by the road rather than the street name for the address of a friend's house), and whilst I was insured to drive the car I didn't have the details to hand. I then had 48hrs to send them information they needed to prove everything was all above board (admittedly at the time, in person at the local station).
If the police don't need this kind of information to trace a potentially stolen car, why bother adding the stress of having an official ID you need to have on your at all times? Especially if it's just to problem that doesn't exist - also interconnected data is not something we're lacking now, you'd have to almost try to live off the grid. Whole thing is just a security blanket for people who can't accept they might be in the wrong.
I don't know about the UK, but in the US not having a valid proof of insurance or (especially) driver's license on hand to show the officer is usually a finable offense, and most municipal police forces aren't going to let the chance to earn some money on traffic fines pass them by, even if the methods did exist for them to find out if you are telling the truth on your own (which they almost certainly don't.)
This is one reason why fines collected should not, in a properly functioning country, go to the local cops or the local municipality, but the central government (or provincial government).
I have an EU-standard plastic driver's license with picture (of me 18 years ago) that is valid until the day I turn 100.
This can actually be a decent analogy. Because while you were allowed to do this, its safe to say not everyone gets that benefit of the doubt. Members of marginalized communities would be much more likely to have a less congenial interaction here and likely would have a similarly increased rate of unhelpful interactions at poll if they lacked proper ID when voting. Some of it wouldn't even be conscious but that wouldn't eliminate the potential impact. That, along with potential economic and access hurdles that those communities might face to gaining identification, is often the subtextual point of requiring it to vote.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+