|
|
Post by Lord Emsworth on May 18, 2023 12:06:00 GMT
The intention was clear to everyone except you We still don't know what happened, apart from anecdotal evidence, and we never will We have an idea from these stories... www.bbc.co.uk/search?q=voter+id&d=HOMEPAGE_PSHow many didn't even bother going to the polling station as they didn't have the ID? How many were intercepted by greeters? I don't know where Rees Mogg was getting his info from. He thinks it backfired but who knows?... www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65599380 |
|
|
|
Post by politician2 on May 18, 2023 14:04:44 GMT
The intention was clear to everyone except you We still don't know what happened, apart from anecdotal evidence, and we never will No, it wasn't "clear to everyone". This is getting close to an all "all right-thinkers believe…" logical fallacy. It was an argument put forward mainly by the Tories' political opponents, and as you correctly point out we're not entirely sure what the effect was, so any discussion is speculative. What we do know (based on the two reports you've provided) is that a maximum of between 2 million and 3.4 million people were potentially affected – a small part of the electorate (very small if we use the figure from The Guardian). |
|
|
|
Post by doug61 on May 18, 2023 14:44:33 GMT
Make sure the allowable ID was something plenty of older people already had but far fewer young people owned Except that's not what happened. There were two groups who were more likely to lack the ID to vote: young people (who tend not to vote Tory but also not to vote) and very old people (who tend to vote Tory and tend to vote). That makes the strategy untenable. As for whether 2+ million or 3.4 million people lacked the necessary ID, we have two quite different figures from two different sources. Both are left-leaning, so we can't accuse either of being more or less likely to massage the figure, and we have no way of definitively confirming which is correct. No one said the Tories were the brightest in attempting it, that's Rees-Moggs point. And as he was there in amongst the decision making people he's the one to know whether it was an attempt at "gerrymandering" or not and he said it was. I think your real problem is aimed at the stupidity in doing it, not whether it was done in Tory interests which Rees-Mogg makes plain, it was. |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Emsworth on May 18, 2023 14:54:48 GMT
We're going round in circles now
We know from a senior Tory insider (JRM) that the intention was to gerrymander
His statement confirmed what was already obvious given...
- The policy was deliberately skewed to make it more difficult for younger voters and minorities to acquire the allowable photo ID
- The policy was was deliberately skewed to allow a wider range of photo ID that typically older people own (e.g. driving licences, older & disabled person's free bus passes, Oyster 60+)
Your desperate attempts to try to deny this reality which started with voter fraud (all but non existent), and then a defence based on the policy's incoherence, are just pointless hot air
Don't believe me, listen to Rees Mogg
|
|
|
|
Post by politician2 on May 18, 2023 21:16:04 GMT
No one said the Tories were the brightest in attempting it, that's Rees-Moggs point. And as he was there in amongst the decision making people he's the one to know whether it was an attempt at "gerrymandering" or not and he said it was. I think your real problem is aimed at the stupidity in doing it, not whether it was done in Tory interests which Rees-Mogg makes plain, it was. My point is that as a vote-rigging strategy, it not only didn't work but clearly could not work. Of course, that doesn't rule out the argument that the Tories might be stupid enough not to recognise that or might be desperate enough to try it anyway. As for Rees-Mogg: he's just a backbencher these days. I'm not certain that he would know what the thinking was behind the move and I'm beginning to think that he's prepared to say just about anything to maintain a high media profile. |
|
|
|
Post by doug61 on May 19, 2023 16:35:56 GMT
No one said the Tories were the brightest in attempting it, that's Rees-Moggs point. And as he was there in amongst the decision making people he's the one to know whether it was an attempt at "gerrymandering" or not and he said it was. I think your real problem is aimed at the stupidity in doing it, not whether it was done in Tory interests which Rees-Mogg makes plain, it was. My point is that as a vote-rigging strategy, it not only didn't work but clearly could not work. Of course, that doesn't rule out the argument that the Tories might be stupid enough not to recognise that or might be desperate enough to try it anyway. As for Rees-Mogg: he's just a backbencher these days. I'm not certain that he would know what the thinking was behind the move and I'm beginning to think that he's prepared to say just about anything to maintain a high media profile. He was at the heart of Government when the decision was made, wasn't he? |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Emsworth on May 19, 2023 16:58:17 GMT
He was at the heart of Government when the decision was made, wasn't he? Yes, he was in the cabinet at the time Not only that he was asked directly in the House whether it was an attempt at voter supression and strenuously denied the possibility. I'm surprised that more isn't being made of this. Have we got so used the lies of this Gov't that no one bats an eyelid? |
|
|
|
Post by politician2 on May 19, 2023 18:56:06 GMT
Yes, he was in the cabinet at the time Not only that he was asked directly in the House whether it was an attempt at voter supression and strenuously denied the possibility. I'm surprised that more isn't being made of this. Have we got so used the lies of this Gov't that no one bats an eyelid? He was a cabinet minister until October 2022, standing down when Truss went and Sunak came in. If he has indeed previously insisted that introducing voter ID wasn't an attempt at voter suppression and is now insisting that it was, then he's demonstrably told an untruth on one of those occasions. |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Emsworth on May 19, 2023 19:04:27 GMT
Having checked Hansard it wasn’t quite so bare faced but he insists that the new law is all about preventing the possibility of voter fraud. He acknowledges that voter fraud was not currently an issue. So still misleading Parliament given he has subsequently admitted that it was designed to suppress votes
|
|
