The 2017 UK General Election Thread - Voting open today from 7am - 10pm

[Eighthours]

I think that postal voting should be abolished, personally, as it's way too open to manipulation. But that's another story!

I'm on holiday for this election. How can I vote if not by post or proxy?

Proxy it up!

[DML]

Sorry guys, but you guys are clearly clueless on this matter. Loads of people would be adversely affected by that. Members of my family see poor families regularly as part of their work and you clearly don't know how the other half live. It's one of the reasons I would never vote Tory. It doesn't matter whose policy it is, it's a stupid idea.

Do these families even vote now? IIRC, stats suggest not.

Well strawberry float it doesn't matter then does it. We should take that RIGHT away from the poor, they don't need the vote, strawberry float em, tell you what let's really solve the poor problem, we are blocking them being part of society with the vote let's extend it, why don't we round them up in poor camps were we can stop worrying about them.

Lol, that's really not what I was saying, but never mind.

But you were saying that it wouldn't change anything because 'they don't vote now'. I mean thats absolute bullshit.

[Eighthours]

Sorry guys, but you guys are clearly clueless on this matter. Loads of people would be adversely affected by that. Members of my family see poor families regularly as part of their work and you clearly don't know how the other half live. It's one of the reasons I would never vote Tory. It doesn't matter whose policy it is, it's a stupid idea.

Do these families even vote now? IIRC, stats suggest not.

Well strawberry float it doesn't matter then does it. We should take that RIGHT away from the poor, they don't need the vote, strawberry float em, tell you what let's really solve the poor problem, we are blocking them being part of society with the vote let's extend it, why don't we round them up in poor camps were we can stop worrying about them.

Lol, that's really not what I was saying, but never mind.

But you were saying that it wouldn't change anything because 'they don't vote now'. I mean thats absolute bullshit.

Just 2 days ago in The Guardian...

When the polling stations open next month, it is likely that many of the poorest people will stay away. Britain’s democracy is a divided one. At the 2010 general election, there was a gaping 23 percentage points gap between the turnout of the richest and poorest income groups. Why? Because those living in poverty who choose not to vote often feel completely excluded and disconnected from the political process.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... ote-apathy

We're kinda getting onto another issue here, that of voter apathy and how to get people more politically engaged. But I don't think that the need for ID will dissuade anyone who wants to vote, as long as more options are introduced to get that ID.

[Moggy]

We're kinda getting onto another issue here, that of voter apathy and how to get people more politically engaged. But I don't think that the need for ID will dissuade anyone who wants to vote, as long as more options are introduced to get that ID.

You think that creating a further barrier to voting (which will have far more impact on the poor) wouldn't dissuade anybody from voting?

[Hypes]

Should just send their butlers

[Preezy]

Let's pretend the voter ID is free - how would this impact on the poor?

[OrangeRKN]

If you want to prevent people voting multiple times in person under false names, you don't need to make people prove their identity when they vote. You only need to ensure they can only vote the once. Stamp the back of a hand when the person walks out, problem solved - and at no cost to the individual.

Of course ID verification is more wide-ranging in preventing more nuanced voter fraud, like choosing to vote in a different constituency because it is more tactical. But the approach taken to this should be a practical one - if voter fraud is not an issue, then nothing needs to be done. Focus should be on the methods used to measure voter fraud so that we can be certain that it isn't an issue, rather than wasting resources on fixing something that isn't broken. The costs and benefits should be weighed up accordingly.

[Eighthours]

We're kinda getting onto another issue here, that of voter apathy and how to get people more politically engaged. But I don't think that the need for ID will dissuade anyone who wants to vote, as long as more options are introduced to get that ID.

You think that creating a further barrier to voting (which will have far more impact on the poor) wouldn't dissuade anybody from voting?

If the options are available to get ID for free or inexpensively (which would also assist people in the rest of their lives), then I don't think it will dissuade anyone who was already going to vote.

If you're talking about currently politically unengaged people who weren't going to vote anyway, then there is no gain or loss from asking for ID. The issue with these people is how to engage them with politics, something which is well beyond this debate. If you can get them engaged, then the ID requirement wouldn't dissuade them either, as long as the ID is easy and cheap to obtain.

Is your problem with the idea the principle of requiring ID, or the current cost of ID?

Let's be honest, the Conservatives are bringing this in because they think it'll lose the opposition votes, just as Labour want votes at 16 because they think that younger people are more likely to vote for them. But neither situation is necessarily true.

[Dual]

Sorry guys, but you guys are clearly clueless on this matter. Loads of people would be adversely affected by that. Members of my family see poor families regularly as part of their work and you clearly don't know how the other half live. It's one of the reasons I would never vote Tory. It doesn't matter whose policy it is, it's a stupid idea.

Do these families even vote now? IIRC, stats suggest not.

nice

[Errkal]

If people are apathetic and prone not to vote, adding an extra thing they need to go and do will only make it worse.

This will only help the tories as their people will always go out and vote.

It is a bad idea, it will harm our democracy and by letting the tories have an easier ride harm those most vulnerable.

[Eighthours]

If people are apathetic and prone not to vote, adding an extra thing they need to go and do will only make it worse.

This will only help the tories as their people will always go out and vote.

It is a bad idea, it will harm our democracy and by letting the tories have an easier ride harm those most vulnerable.

I assure you that staunch Labour supporters will also always go out and vote when they have a leader who isn't Jeremy Corbyn.

[Errkal]

If people are apathetic and prone not to vote, adding an extra thing they need to go and do will only make it worse.

This will only help the tories as their people will always go out and vote.

It is a bad idea, it will harm our democracy and by letting the tories have an easier ride harm those most vulnerable.

I assure you that staunch Labour supporters will also always go out and vote when they have a leader who isn't Jeremy Corbyn.

I'm more talking about the "normal" voter, people that are generally left of centre. the more right you go the more certain it is people will go and vote because they want to make sure misery hits the poor or whatever. centre left people are more likely to go "oh whats the point" and no go out and vote.

Adding a requirement to voting makes them even more likely to not bother. Also even if the ID thing is free, I imagine those in abject poverty wont see the ads or whatever for it, won't have the time to sort forms etc. as they are working and trying to scrape out an existence.

It is a bad idea.

[KK]

The Tories just all over the place on immigration:

The Conservatives would "aim" to meet their manifesto pledge to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands, a cabinet minister has said.

Sir Michael Fallon said the policy was not yet costed as the government did not know when it would be achieved.

The pledge to reduce migration to below 100,000 - which was in the 2010 and 2015 Tory manifestos - has never been met.

The most recent figure was 273,000 and the last year that it was below 100,000 was 1997.

The manifesto for the 8 June election says: "Theresa May's Conservatives will deliver... controlled, sustainable migration, with net migration down to the tens of thousands".

'Our ambition'

Sir Michael, the defence secretary, was asked on the BBC's Newsnight to confirm that meeting the pledge was now the party's policy.

"It's our ambition to get it down," he said, adding: "It's our aim to continue to bear down on immigration."

Sir Michael said it would become easier to reduce migration as the UK leaves the EU, and pointed to another manifesto pledge, to increase the levy on firms hiring foreign workers.

He said there would be a cost to the economy, but this had not yet been calculated "because we do not know specifically what year we are going to reach that point" of hitting the target.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39970768

Pulling figures out of their arse.

[Drumstick]

As has already been said - anyone with an ounce of common sense would scoff at these target numbers - but there's thousands, perhaps millions, that will take May at her word.

[Eighthours]

the more right you go the more certain it is people will go and vote because they want to make sure misery hits the poor or whatever.

Yes, I'm sure that's what's in all right of centre voters' minds. The first thought in their brains when they wake up is, 'Let's make the poor miserable!' EVERY day.

I assure you that staunch Labour supporters will also always go out and vote when they have a leader who isn't Jeremy Corbyn.

I'm more talking about the "normal" voter, people that are generally left of centre

Also, very clearly the opinion polls show that the 'normal' voter is now right of centre. But never mind.

[Eighthours]

The Tories just all over the place on immigration:

The Conservatives would "aim" to meet their manifesto pledge to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands, a cabinet minister has said.

Sir Michael Fallon said the policy was not yet costed as the government did not know when it would be achieved.

The pledge to reduce migration to below 100,000 - which was in the 2010 and 2015 Tory manifestos - has never been met.

The most recent figure was 273,000 and the last year that it was below 100,000 was 1997.

The manifesto for the 8 June election says: "Theresa May's Conservatives will deliver... controlled, sustainable migration, with net migration down to the tens of thousands".

'Our ambition'

Sir Michael, the defence secretary, was asked on the BBC's Newsnight to confirm that meeting the pledge was now the party's policy.

"It's our ambition to get it down," he said, adding: "It's our aim to continue to bear down on immigration."

Sir Michael said it would become easier to reduce migration as the UK leaves the EU, and pointed to another manifesto pledge, to increase the levy on firms hiring foreign workers.

He said there would be a cost to the economy, but this had not yet been calculated "because we do not know specifically what year we are going to reach that point" of hitting the target.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39970768

Pulling figures out of their arse.

It's complete and total bollocks. George Osborne let the cat out of the bag in the Evening Standard editorial this week when he said that not one Cabinet minister supported the target.

[Errkal]

the more right you go the more certain it is people will go and vote because they want to make sure misery hits the poor or whatever.

Yes, I'm sure that's what's in all right of centre voters' minds. The first thought in their brains when they wake up is, 'Let's make the poor miserable!' EVERY day.

Yeah ignore the actual point because of a remark in there.

Point is, as you go right people are more likely to go out and vote and not be subject to apathy. Whereas as you go left they are less likely to vote and more prone to apathy, thus adding an additional requirement will just increase the drop-off. Making it easier for the tories to win, it is a self-serving move, nothing more.

[Eighthours]

Point is, as you go right people are more likely to go out and vote and not be subject to apathy. Whereas as you go left they are less likely to vote and more prone to apathy, thus adding an additional requirement will just increase the drop-off. Making it easier for the tories to win, it is a self-serving move, nothing more.

Evidence for this?

[Moggy]

If the options are available to get ID for free or inexpensively (which would also assist people in the rest of their lives), then I don't think it will dissuade anyone who was already going to vote.

Inexpensive is a very subjective term. To you £5/£10/£50/£80 might not be a lot, to other people it might be the difference between feeding their kids that week.

There is absolutely no way that voter ID would be introduced for free either.

And it will dissuade people from voting. Plenty of people will not be able to find their ID on the morning they go to vote, or will turn up at the polling station with no ID on them.

If you're talking about currently politically unengaged people who weren't going to vote anyway, then there is no gain or loss from asking for ID. The issue with these people is how to engage them with politics, something which is well beyond this debate. If you can get them engaged, then the ID requirement wouldn't dissuade them either, as long as the ID is easy and cheap to obtain.

You were talking about poor and politically unengaged people (which you also seem to think is the same thing), we were just talking about the poor.

There is a loss from asking for ID, if it stops people bothering to vote.

Is your problem with the idea the principle of requiring ID, or the current cost of ID?

Both. I was against the idea of a national ID card when Labour tried to introduce it. I am also against any measures that would prevent anybody from being able to vote.

Let's be honest, the Conservatives are bringing this in because they think it'll lose the opposition votes, just as Labour want votes at 16 because they think that younger people are more likely to vote for them. But neither situation is necessarily true.

Both those situations are true. Stopping poor people voting will help the Conservatives in the long run, more young people voting will help Labour.

There is a big difference between the two though. One option will stop people voting, the other option will make more people vote. Which of those is more damaging to a democracy?

[That]

Point is, as you go right people are more likely to go out and vote and not be subject to apathy. Whereas as you go left they are less likely to vote and more prone to apathy, thus adding an additional requirement will just increase the drop-off. Making it easier for the tories to win, it is a self-serving move, nothing more.

Evidence for this?

I think it happens in some areas of America, to be fair. I can't remember the exact system they have, but I recall the barrier to getting ID is high enough that poor minorities (predominantly left-leaning) stop bothering, whereas the rich white people (predominantly right-leaning) don't see going through that process as a big deal. So ultimately one demographic gets to vote and the other doesn't.