Queens speech

The Queen's speech was an obvious attack on democracy, following all the rules that bring dictators to power. What some fail to recognise is that when our democratic rights are taken away they cease to exist for this government's followers as well as for those that oppose these moves towards the far-right. We may all hope for retaliation to bring in a centrist government but what if it gives birth to one that is as far to the left as this is moving to the right. Once those democratic rights are gone. How will these people like having an identity card then?

This is an excellent comment on the speech:

It [the Queen's Speech] scarcely lived up to the Brexiters’ billing of this as a moment of national liberation (£) from the supposed colonial yoke of the EUSSR (also known as the Nazi EU and the neo-liberal EU, which might suggest that Brexiters’ grasp of political philosophy is a little shaky). Rather, ‘taking back control’ turns out to be something of a damp squib. For which there is a simple explanation: it was an illusion.

Later, in the same article, it gives more instances of the destruction of our democracy:

Thus there were long-trailed provisions to hobble judicial review, to clamp down on public protest, to bring ‘woke’ universities to heel, and to discourage voting amongst the unwashed. No doubt it was designed to appeal to the kind of ‘red wall’ Tory voters that Labour sentimentalists still persist in regarding as their ‘heartlands’. It was also (or therefore), as David Allen Green observes, “a multi-pronged attack on our liberties” growing from the ‘authoritarian populism’ expressed in Brexiter notions of the ‘will of the people’.

www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/05/10/parliament-cannot-blame-brussels-longer/
chrisgreybrexitblog.blogspot.com/2021/05/labour-and-post-brexit-politics.html
chrisgreybrexitblog.blogspot.com/

Urmstongran

Well said dayvidg. Good point actually.

It's a very superficial point. What you seem to forget is that those "decrying" the referendum also put forward good arguments to say that was not democratic.

It seems that for some, as long as you are giving our democracy away to this government, and it is a means to the end they want, and treats citizens as they see them, they don't care about us losing it.

A compelling reason not to have IDs

Trump is urging the USA to follow the U.K. and insist on voter ID.

We know that he is heavily into voter suppression.

Alegrias1

JohnD

Many of those complaining about the Ids will have either a driving licence or a bus pass which, in a sense, is an Id card.

No they are not, and if you think they are you really don't understand what we are talking about.

They are not compulsory and you don't need to show them to access basic rights. And there is no chance of an officer of the law asking to see your bus pass so you can prove you are entitled to be here.

Precisely.

Still no coherent and compelling reason apparent for compulsory voter ID.

We don’t have them where I live but in Queensland you have to show ID to vote. Mind you ,voting here is compulsory and you get fined if you don’t at least turn up or put in a postal vote. No one makes you actually vote,though and you can scribble all over your ballot paper if that floats your boat. There is a reason - most are that uninterested they wouldn’t bother which would mean the pressure groups would form a government so it makes sense in that way.

bluelord

I didn't ..in Labour run Wales

Really? Mine was scrutinised very carefully both times when I went for my jabs.
Most people had passports and they put a sticker on your passport afterwards.

In Scotland, we didn't need to produce ID for our vaccinations, but we have to show it when visiting the tip!!

I’d feel safer knowing who was walking our streets could be asked by the Police to prove themselves.

Jeezy peeps ?.

I still wouldn’t mind ID cards here. As in other European countries. The UK has changed so much over the years. I’d feel safer knowing who was walking our streets could be asked by the Police to prove themselves. It’s not a problem to carry our ID in Spain. You have to produce it if asked. I don’t think it’s a big deal this day and age. Maybe years ago. Now? Not so much.

JohnD

Many of those complaining about the Ids will have either a driving licence or a bus pass which, in a sense, is an Id card.

No they are not, and if you think they are you really don't understand what we are talking about.

They are not compulsory and you don't need to show them to access basic rights. And there is no chance of an officer of the law asking to see your bus pass so you can prove you are entitled to be here.

Many of those complaining about the Ids will have either a driving licence or a bus pass which, in a sense, is an Id card.

Urmstongran

Well said dayvidg. Good point actually.

It's not a good point at all. Democracy didn't come to a complete stop on 24th June 2016. Democracy includes the right oppose and the right to lawfully demonstrate ones opposition. Democracy is also supposed to have regard to the needs of minorities.

Democracy is about having free and fair votes and all communications in an election being available for everyone who wants to to scrutinise. And abiding by electoral law...

It would be a good argument if it had been democratic. It was nothing but.

Well said dayvidg. Good point actually.

How quickly opinions/goal posts change???

dayvidg

It just seems rather perverse to me that most of those decrying the (apparent) loss of our democracy that voter I.D. would cause, are the same ones who have spent the last 4 years trying to undermine the result of the democratic vote of the nation to leave the European Union.

The vote of England and Wales I believe. Not Scotland and N Ireland. So, imo the Scots and Irish are entitled to slag off identity cards as much as they wish. For my part, being English, I’m not too bothered about their introduction as long as every single person can easily get one therefore not losing their democratic vote. And I’m deeply suspicious of that.

Och, away with you. Done a survey have you? Or just making stuff up?

It just seems rather perverse to me that most of those decrying the (apparent) loss of our democracy that voter I.D. would cause, are the same ones who have spent the last 4 years trying to undermine the result of the democratic vote of the nation to leave the European Union.

Thank for for answering my question Greta, I'll stop asking now.

I do agree with MaizieD and Dinahmo though. We don't have ID cards here and we've managed to cope with identifying ourselves with the means that we've got, when required. A (compulsory?) id card is a way of the government checking on us, whatever hue that government takes.

When I lived in South London during the 70s and 80s the SUS Laws, which were enacted in 1824 as part of the Vagrancy Act, were frequently used by police to target ethnic minorities. The Laws permitted the police to stop and search, and even arrest, anyone found in a public place if they suspected that they intended to commit an offence.

In order to bring a prosecution under the act, the police had to prove that the defendant had committed two acts:

the first, that established them as a "suspected person" (by acting suspiciously), and
the second, that provided intent to commit an arrestable offence.

Two witnesses were required to substantiate the charge, which were usually two police officers patrolling together.

Obviously the word of 2 policemen would be accepted over the word of the person being searched.

The SUS Laws were believed to be a contributory factor in the race riots of the early 80s in Brixton, Bristol etc.

It is for the above reasons that I am opposed to the introduction of ID in the UK. We use passports or driving licenses in order to prove that we are who we say we are when collecting purchases. There is nothing wrong with that. The police don't ask to see your passport or driving licence if they decide to stop you whilst walking along the street. If the carrying of IDs was to become law it would give them plenty of opportunities hassle people if they didn't like the look of them.

As far as voter ID is concerned, it seems like taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Numbers seem to be vanishingly small.

I don't understand how people are supposed to be abusing the system. If I vote and I am ticked off the list, no-one else can vote as me, can they? Or do they think that people are turning up at the polling station and using the vote of someone else who is not bothering to vote? If it's neither case, how exactly is it supposed to be happening?

The Queen's Speech mainly showed how the government is changing the rules to suit itself. The coalition introduced fixed term elections because it was supposed to benefit them, and this government wants to abolish them because it wants to be able to call snap elections when it's riding high in the polls. They want to reduce the judiciary's power to intervene when politicians act unlawfully, since they got their wrists slapped when they prorogued Parliament. How is it democracy when you tilt the playing field to give yourselves an advantage?

Reminds me of the time when the GLC, under Ken Livingstone, was a thorn in Thatcher's side, so she abolished it.

The Police and Crime Bill will massively erode the right to peaceful protest. As for up to 10 years inside for damaging a statue... Oh, for God's sake. Our local paper recently reported the sentencing of a man who had been sexually abusing a young girl since she was six years old. He got five years in prison. So you could get twice as long for damaging a statue than for molesting a little child. It's insane.

The Health Secretary is also going to get more power over the NHS, which will undoubtedly hasten it down the privatisation route. The new provisions will include no requirement for contracts to put out to tender, which has been happening throughout the pandemic anyway. More contracts for people like Hancock's mate who runs a pub but somehow got a contract to supply Covid tests.

It was also reported, at the time of the election, that the government is considering plans to change the way that voting is done to elect mayors, because Labour candidates like. Sadiq Khan and Andy Burnham keep winning. The level playing field is a thing of the past.

How will we identify ourselves when we are too old to drive and too old to travel abroad? Utility bills don't come with photos.

Why will we need to identify ourselves then? If a utility bill really isn't sufficient then there is no reason why an out of date passport of drivers licence shouldn't suffice. We don't change our feature with age.

With respect, I really don't care what 'other countries' do, Greta. Voter ID is unnecessary. We don't need it.

ID cards are used whenever proof of identity is required. Over here we show our passports or driving licences. I have never understood this fear of ID cards. I guess it depends on your attitude. In countries where they have been used for many years they are seen as a convenient form of identification – not as a tool for 'the enemy' to check on you!

As regards voting I'd be surprised if there were a lot of fraud at our elections. But if people turn up withouth identification how do we know to what extent this goes on? Perhaps we just trust that only honest people turn up to vote. At the recent elections my daughter was unwell and didn't vote. I was staying with her at the time and could easily have gone to the polling station and given her name and address. Who would have known?

How will we identify ourselves when we are too old to drive and too old to travel abroad? Utility bills don't come with photos.

Gwyneth

Can’t see a problem with ID cards. As other posters have already said we have to have them for driving licences, passports etc.

Driving licences, passports have a purpose. They hold essential information about the holder.

Producing ID to collect parcels, letters etc. has a purpose, at the least it protects the sender, particularly if they're a business, in the case of any dispute about non arrival. ID for starting a bank account is a bit obvious, too.

But voter ID to supposedly protect against fraud, which hasn't happened on anything but an utterly miniscule scale, is not necessary. No fraud, no need for them. I've been voting for 50 years. Never heard of any massive fraud (and it would have to be huge to affect a result) arising from in-person voting. There is absolutely no justification for it.

On the other hand, undemocratic practices, such as targeted 'dark advertising' needs to be stamped on. Don't notice our Vote Leave government who benefitted so much from such practice, trying to stamp that out...

There was absolutely overwhelming support for voter ID amongst those who came to vote

Did they say why they supported it?