RugbyRebels

PMQs. Asked specifically about the full week of negotiations... "My position has not changed"


Later...
FFS.
Conservative cabinet minister (Chloe Smith) just likened "voter fraud" to rape, because it's rare (and therefore we need voter ID, coincidentally disenfranchising immigrants, poor people, disabled and transgender people)

For clarity, voter fraud estimated at 1 in 1.6M votes cast, so on average 1 vote per 16 constituencies!

Which Tyler wrote:PMQs. Asked specifically about the full week of negotiations... "My position has not changed"


Later...
FFS.
Conservative cabinet minister (Chloe Smith) just likened "voter fraud" to rape, because it's rare (and therefore we need voter ID, coincidentally disenfranchising immigrants, poor people, disabled and transgender people)

For clarity, voter fraud estimated at 1 in 1.6M votes cast, so on average 1 vote per 16 constituencies!

Wow.

Puja

Nearly all actual voting fraud pertains to postal votes. So if they want to address fraud they don't need to target poor people they can reduce the vast part of whatever the problem is by significantly reducing the grounds for receiving a postal vote

Digby wrote:Nearly all actual voting fraud pertains to postal votes. So if they want to address fraud they don't need to target poor people they can reduce the vast part of whatever the problem is by significantly reducing the grounds for receiving a postal vote

Yet the majority of postal voters back remain...

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:Nearly all actual voting fraud pertains to postal votes. So if they want to address fraud they don't need to target poor people they can reduce the vast part of whatever the problem is by significantly reducing the grounds for receiving a postal vote

Yet the majority of postal voters back remain...

I would have thought all postal voters would back remain as it requires the ability to read and write.

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:Nearly all actual voting fraud pertains to postal votes. So if they want to address fraud they don't need to target poor people they can reduce the vast part of whatever the problem is by significantly reducing the grounds for receiving a postal vote

Yet the majority of postal voters back remain...

I've no idea what the supposed rate of fraud might be in postal voting but I do recall the stats bear out it's by far the biggest risk for fraudulent voting, and just from a common sense point of view it's the area most likely to be abused.

And yet oddly whenever we hear about a need to act against voter fraud it's methods that would accidentally disenfranchise poor voters at a much greater rate. I'll withdraw my concerns if whatever ID is deemed necessary for receiving a ballot is provided for free to anyone earning less than £50k per annum, and I'd also be more worried about fraud that isn't postal if returning officers started reporting significant numbers arriving at a polling station to be told they'd already voted

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:Nearly all actual voting fraud pertains to postal votes. So if they want to address fraud they don't need to target poor people they can reduce the vast part of whatever the problem is by significantly reducing the grounds for receiving a postal vote

Yet the majority of postal voters back remain...

I've no idea what the supposed rate of fraud might be in postal voting but I do recall the stats bear out it's by far the biggest risk for fraudulent voting, and just from a common sense point of view it's the area most likely to be abused.

And yet oddly whenever we hear about a need to act against voter fraud it's methods that would accidentally disenfranchise poor voters at a much greater rate. I'll withdraw my concerns if whatever ID is deemed necessary for receiving a ballot is provided for free to anyone earning less than £50k per annum, and I'd also be more worried about fraud that isn't postal if returning officers started reporting significant numbers arriving at a polling station to be told they'd already voted

LOVE the idea that anybody earning under £50k is poor.

I’m also surprised you’re defending their right to vote given that you were merrily stating earlier in this thread that poor people didn’t know what they were voting for.

Further, if you have a look at what ID is accepted, those poor buggers on circa £40k per annum can use their benefits statement as ID. (At least they can where I live).

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:
Yet the majority of postal voters back remain...

I've no idea what the supposed rate of fraud might be in postal voting but I do recall the stats bear out it's by far the biggest risk for fraudulent voting, and just from a common sense point of view it's the area most likely to be abused.

And yet oddly whenever we hear about a need to act against voter fraud it's methods that would accidentally disenfranchise poor voters at a much greater rate. I'll withdraw my concerns if whatever ID is deemed necessary for receiving a ballot is provided for free to anyone earning less than £50k per annum, and I'd also be more worried about fraud that isn't postal if returning officers started reporting significant numbers arriving at a polling station to be told they'd already voted

LOVE the idea that anybody earning under £50k is poor.

I’m also surprised you’re defending their right to vote given that you were merrily stating earlier in this thread that poor people didn’t know what they were voting for.

Further, if you have a look at what ID is accepted, those poor buggers on circa £40k per annum can use their benefits statement as ID. (At least they can where I live).

Most of the people proposing voter ID laws want photo ID, which'd be driving licence or passport.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:
I've no idea what the supposed rate of fraud might be in postal voting but I do recall the stats bear out it's by far the biggest risk for fraudulent voting, and just from a common sense point of view it's the area most likely to be abused.

And yet oddly whenever we hear about a need to act against voter fraud it's methods that would accidentally disenfranchise poor voters at a much greater rate. I'll withdraw my concerns if whatever ID is deemed necessary for receiving a ballot is provided for free to anyone earning less than £50k per annum, and I'd also be more worried about fraud that isn't postal if returning officers started reporting significant numbers arriving at a polling station to be told they'd already voted

LOVE the idea that anybody earning under £50k is poor.

I’m also surprised you’re defending their right to vote given that you were merrily stating earlier in this thread that poor people didn’t know what they were voting for.

Further, if you have a look at what ID is accepted, those poor buggers on circa £40k per annum can use their benefits statement as ID. (At least they can where I live).

Most of the people proposing voter ID laws want photo ID, which'd be driving licence or passport.

Puja

Not sure where you got you’re polling from and, regardless, they can propose what they like. The fact is that that isn’t what is being trialled in my neck of the woods. From what I’ve read, there are loads of different trials and options, the vast majority of which aren’t photo ID. Even for the photo ID, it stretches far beyond driving licence and passport.

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: LOVE the idea that anybody earning under £50k is poor.

I’m also surprised you’re defending their right to vote given that you were merrily stating earlier in this thread that poor people didn’t know what they were voting for.

Further, if you have a look at what ID is accepted, those poor buggers on circa £40k per annum can use their benefits statement as ID. (At least they can where I live).

Most of the people proposing voter ID laws want photo ID, which'd be driving licence or passport.

Puja

Not sure where you got you’re polling from and, regardless, they can propose what they like. The fact is that that isn’t what is being trialled in my neck of the woods. From what I’ve read, there are loads of different trials and options, the vast majority of which aren’t photo ID. Even for the photo ID, it stretches far beyond driving licence and passport.

If only the UK had an ID card system...you know, to make this kind of thing easier...and making travel easier...and allowing you to carry your right to travel in your wallet...

But I guess then we wouldn't have the Daily Mail or Blue passports made in France.

6 more months of this to go!

So the new date is Halloween... Though we can leave earlier if an actual deal is passed.

May insists we can leave without hosting European elections, up until May 31st, a full week after those elections are due to take place...


The idea that it's a fudge is a bit ridiculous, it's a compromise. May could (but won't) learn a thing or two from that. Compromise means two parties starting from different points, and meeting somewhere in the middle. Demanding the complete capitulation of one side or another is really not a good way to build consensus, even if it's how both of our major parties are accustomed to acting.


As for the European elections, idencorage everyone to vote, especially the younger generation who may not know that they need to register (by May 6th) and to remember that it's proportional representation, do tactical voting is pointless. We're due to send some lame ducks for 5 months, do this can be a single-issue vote (probably should be).

If you object to the way the Conservatives have run brexit, just vote anyone-but-con.

If you object to the way labour have handled their side, vote anyone-but-lab.

If you want to remain, vote Lib Dem.

If you want to leave with no deal, vote UKIP.


We may not get a 3rd referendum, but this election will sure as hell be taken as being indicative, and will send a real message about where public opinion is - whether you vote or not.

Which Tyler wrote: May insists we can leave without hosting European elections, up until May 31st, a full week after those elections are due to take place...

Everything I’ve read agrees with her. For all elections, those who win the ballot don’t immediately take their seat. There is always a delay until the new parliament/council is formed. I’m guessing for the EU that delay is a week.

If people want vote no deal they should vote for Farage’s Brexit Party. They are polling above UKIP and neck and neck with the Lib Dems (Westminster voting intentions).

Lizard wrote:6 more months of this to go!

Up to.

Banquo wrote:

Lizard wrote:6 more months of this to go!

Up to.

Love the optimism.

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Lizard wrote:6 more months of this to go!

Up to.

Love the optimism.

Decades of this to go in truth

Mellsblue wrote:

Which Tyler wrote: May insists we can leave without hosting European elections, up until May 31st, a full week after those elections are due to take place...

Everything I’ve read agrees with her. For all elections, those who win the ballot don’t immediately take their seat. There is always a delay until the new parliament/council is formed. I’m guessing for the EU that delay is a week.

If people want vote no deal they should vote for Farage’s Brexit Party. They are polling above UKIP and neck and neck with the Lib Dems (Westminster voting intentions).

I think we have to host elections or constitutionally the EU needs to change the number of seats being voted on in other nations, if we then fail to fill those seats as we've left in the intervening period we've still met the requirements of the constitution.

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Which Tyler wrote: May insists we can leave without hosting European elections, up until May 31st, a full week after those elections are due to take place...

Everything I’ve read agrees with her. For all elections, those who win the ballot don’t immediately take their seat. There is always a delay until the new parliament/council is formed. I’m guessing for the EU that delay is a week.

If people want vote no deal they should vote for Farage’s Brexit Party. They are polling above UKIP and neck and neck with the Lib Dems (Westminster voting intentions).

I think we have to host elections or constitutionally the EU needs to change the number of seats being voted on in other nations, if we then fail to fill those seats as we've left in the intervening period we've still met the requirements of the constitution.

Yep. Point was we can still leave at that point without having the elections. Constitutionally the the new parliament doesn’t form until that date, not the date of the election.

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Everything I’ve read agrees with her. For all elections, those who win the ballot don’t immediately take their seat. There is always a delay until the new parliament/council is formed. I’m guessing for the EU that delay is a week.

If people want vote no deal they should vote for Farage’s Brexit Party. They are polling above UKIP and neck and neck with the Lib Dems (Westminster voting intentions).

I think we have to host elections or constitutionally the EU needs to change the number of seats being voted on in other nations, if we then fail to fill those seats as we've left in the intervening period we've still met the requirements of the constitution.

Yep. Point was we can still leave at that point without having the elections. Constitutionally the the new parliament doesn’t form until that date, not the date of the election.

Constitutionally when does one need to confirm one will be holding elections though? Surely it's some way in advance of the actual date of election?

Almost certainly this is poorly written in the constitution as nobody envisaged the scenario and we could well find both grey areas and contradictory areas

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:
I think we have to host elections or constitutionally the EU needs to change the number of seats being voted on in other nations, if we then fail to fill those seats as we've left in the intervening period we've still met the requirements of the constitution.

Yep. Point was we can still leave at that point without having the elections. Constitutionally the the new parliament doesn’t form until that date, not the date of the election.

Constitutionally when does one need to confirm one will be holding elections though? Surely it's some way in advance of the actual date of election?

Almost certainly this is poorly written in the constitution as nobody envisaged the scenario and we could well find both grey areas and contradictory areas

No idea of cut off point for us to say “we’re off by x so no need for us to take part in elections”.

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Yep. Point was we can still leave at that point without having the elections. Constitutionally the the new parliament doesn’t form until that date, not the date of the election.

Constitutionally when does one need to confirm one will be holding elections though? Surely it's some way in advance of the actual date of election?

Almost certainly this is poorly written in the constitution as nobody envisaged the scenario and we could well find both grey areas and contradictory areas

No idea of cut off point for us to say “we’re off by x so no need for us to take part in elections”.

Whenever it is it's going to be well ahead of the date in May that May is working towards. How the government isn't ready with advice from constitutional lawyers on this I don't know, both in terms of their communication with EU partners and domestic electorate

At times our cabinet seems akin to Trump making their plans with no attention being paid to what's legally permissible

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:
Constitutionally when does one need to confirm one will be holding elections though? Surely it's some way in advance of the actual date of election?

Almost certainly this is poorly written in the constitution as nobody envisaged the scenario and we could well find both grey areas and contradictory areas

No idea of cut off point for us to say “we’re off by x so no need for us to take part in elections”.

Whenever it is it's going to be well ahead of the date in May that May is working towards. How the government isn't ready with advice from constitutional lawyers on this I don't know, both in terms of their communication with EU partners and domestic electorate

At times our cabinet seems akin to Trump making their plans with no attention being paid to what's legally permissible

I’m sure those who need to know do know (I hope). I doubt they’re leaving it to the RR politics board to organise. Tbh, the idea that we will be leaving then is for the birds.

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote: Up to.

Love the optimism.

Decades of this to go in truth

Fair point.

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: No idea of cut off point for us to say “we’re off by x so no need for us to take part in elections”.

Whenever it is it's going to be well ahead of the date in May that May is working towards. How the government isn't ready with advice from constitutional lawyers on this I don't know, both in terms of their communication with EU partners and domestic electorate

At times our cabinet seems akin to Trump making their plans with no attention being paid to what's legally permissible

I’m sure those who need to know do know (I hope). I doubt they’re leaving it to the RR politics board to organise. Tbh, the idea that we will be leaving then is for the birds.

I'm happy to back a leave decision for a large enough bribe. It's weird back on point though, I suspect we've all given up on MPs reading and understanding the subject, but that the cabinet and even PM seem surprised to be confronted by reality is rather alarming even if a little amusing

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Love the optimism.

Decades of this to go in truth

Fair point.

I might be up to 16 of them now, and in only 8000 or so posts