243
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Mex@feddit.uk 69 points 1 year ago

Exactly as everybody warned.

[-] throw4w4y5@sh.itjust.works 50 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

this was always the plan, since minorities and disabled citizens in the UK tend not to vote conservative.

[-] SubArcticTundra@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago

Meanwhile Labour plan to give people with Settled Status the vote, who they probably expect to vote for them. This cherry picking of the electorate isn't going to benefit anyone.

[-] Shalakushka@kbin.social 23 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yes, disenfranchising people is exactly the same as enfranchising people, your big centrist brain has it all figured out

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Blackmist@feddit.uk 6 points 1 year ago

Why shouldn't they be able to vote?

They live here. They work here. They pay taxes. They're allowed to stay indefinitely. They've made this country their home.

[-] Gazumi@lemmy.world 32 points 1 year ago

Also affected the poorest communities. The health, wealth and representation gaps grew even wider that day.

[-] ReCursing@kbin.social 30 points 1 year ago

Yeah that was the plan

[-] SonnyVabitch@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago

Works as intended then.

[-] Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The authors found that “polling clerks are more likely to fail to compare a photo ID to the person presenting that document if the person is of a different ethnicity”.

They also highlighted the case of Andrea Barratt, who is immunocompromised and was blocked from entering a polling booth after refusing to remove her mask for an identification check.

WTF am I even reading? The problem is that some clerks are too stupid to identify non-white persons? And that someone else refused to take off the mask for 2 seconds to show her face!!?

At least it's not the usual racist bullshit from the US where non-white people are allegedly too stupid and/or poor to get an ID...

[-] x4740N@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

Immunocomprimised may potentially be a big risk landing someone in hospital if they inhaled something from the atmosphere that a weakened Immune system could handle

Sometimes that risk could end up being fatal

Fyi not a doctor but most people excluding anti-vaxers know how immune systems work

[-] Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

If you are that endagered that you can't take it off for a few seconds, you would also not be casually walking around with a normal mask... They are not a 100% protection.

[-] Magnus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 year ago

Really shouldn't have to take the risk to stick a cross next to your favourite Oxford University graduate's figurehead

[-] x4740N@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

People also don't want to end up in hospital feeling horrible as well

Immunocomprimised people have died because of covid and the anti vax idiots increased the amount of times that happened

[-] SupraMario@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Mail in ballots?

[-] RobotToaster@infosec.pub 3 points 1 year ago

more likely to fail to compare a photo ID to the person presenting that document if the person is of a different ethnicity

Wait, are they saying if someone is a different ethnicity they are more likely to not check if the ID matches?

That's how it reads to me but I don't think it's the intention?

[-] LChitman@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

I think it means they're less likely to be able to identify that the ID photo is the same person as the one standing in front of them. It's the other-race effect, which I understand is quite natural for people of all races that have less experience with other races.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] irmoz@reddthat.com 12 points 1 year ago

Colour me shocked

[-] omgitsaheadcrab@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 year ago

But surely you can't just let people vote without identifying them?

[-] Oneeightnine@feddit.uk 34 points 1 year ago

I mean, for a start it's a solution without a problem. We don't really have an issue with voter fraud in the UK. All this has done is disenfranchise people who could previously vote without needing an often costly ID.

[-] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 10 points 1 year ago
[-] PunnyName@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago
[-] Chariotwheel@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

Yeah, I think voter ID is alright, but when you historically doesn't have it and don't really need it, it just seems to be a barrier for barrier's sake.

[-] WellThisIsNew@fjdk.uk 12 points 1 year ago

It costs time and effort, something that disabled people often have less of.

Voter fraud is extremely low in the UK, and most of what does occur isn't stopped by these changes (the most common type is, for example, parents submitting a postal vote on behalf of their (18+) children without asking them), So here's a question for you:

If the number of people disuaded from voting due to the new ID laws significantly outnumber* the amount of fraud that's prevented by this law, was the law a positive change?

*To the point that it has a larger effect on election outcome

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] breadsmasher@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

Tories lost a lot of votes because old people forgot to bring ID and then didn’t bother going back again. So regardless of whether its free, it still disenfranchises people

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65602231

[-] merridew@feddit.uk 13 points 1 year ago

You give your name & address at your local polling place, and it is checked off by a polling officer against the Electoral Roll. So yes, you could pretend to be someone else, but they would need to have not already voted. And you could only do it once per polling station, because you'll be recognised by the polling officers. And for what?

[-] PunnyName@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Name + DOB + address

All you need them to give you for verification.

[-] AmberPrince@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

I can only speak for the US, and even then, only for my state of Illinois, but I had to provide my ID and proof of residency when I registered to vote. After that just my name, address, and signature were needed during the actual election.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] wewbull@feddit.uk 6 points 1 year ago

... and will call for changes, including the acceptance of a greater range of ID documents.

They're just a bunch of fucking dullards aren't they?!?! REPEAL IT!

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 5 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


Controversial rules governing voter identification led to racial and disability discrimination at this year’s local elections in England, according to a damning report co-written by one of the former ministers responsible for introducing them.

MPs and peers on the all-party parliamentary group on democracy and the constitution will publish a report on Monday saying that the rules caused more harm than they prevented when they came into force in May, and will call for changes, including the acceptance of a greater range of ID documents.

The report was co-authored by Sir Robert Buckland, who was justice minister in 2021 when the bill to introduce the rules was first launched in parliament, and who subsequently helped vote them through.

The report says: “Their decision in that instance was … clearly discriminatory (and potentially unlawful) because they denied Andrea Barratt the right to cast a ballot purely on the basis of circumstances which arose as a direct result of a disability.”

An interim study published by the Electoral Commission earlier this year found at least 14,000 people had been denied a vote because they lacked the correct form of ID.

The report’s authors call for ministers to broaden the types of documents that can be accepted as identification, and to allow those who fail ID checks to sign a legally binding declaration instead confirming their identity.


The original article contains 660 words, the summary contains 224 words. Saved 66%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2023
243 points (100.0% liked)

United Kingdom

4082 readers
185 users here now

General community for news/discussion in the UK.

Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.

Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS