Whilst we are all looking one way

I found this - which I hope is helpful, but why dies she not have a bus pass?

The list of approved photo ID will not be limited to UK passports or driving licences. A broad range of documents already in use will be accepted, including, for example, various concessionary travel passes, Proof of Age Standards Scheme (PASS) cards, and photocard parking permits issued as part of the Blue Badge scheme. In addition, expired photographic ID will be accepted as long as the photograph is of a good enough likeness to allow polling station staff to confirm the identity of the holder.
For any voter who does not have one of the required forms of photographic ID, a free, local Voter Card will be available from their local authority

“Does” not “dies” ???

Not that it matters, but she has never applied for one as my brother acts as her chauffeur. However, there will be other people who don't have photo ID for good reasons who will now be excluded. What will the electoral commission do about postal votes? I think it's been a knee jerk reaction to try to appeal to a certain type of voter.

Yes, I think you're right about the knee-jerk reaction, Grandmabatty. It does seem ridiculous to require photo ID, no matter how easy they think they're making it for people to get it. Why should we have to, when voter impersonation is practically a non-existent crime?

The other worry now is that having taken away the right to peaceful protest - Patel now needs to be sought for permission to protest, we could well see an increase in riots as a result.

It is all very worrying. Our democratic rights are being quietly eroded, bit by bit, by a government who blatantly lie and a Prime Minister who takes no responsibility for his lies and his actions. Are we like the boiling frog analogy?

I wonder if this change in law has anything to do with the forthcoming 2nd Scottish Independence Referendum? For Indyref1 it was the electoral Commission which decided (after consultation with the Scottish and Westminster Governments) what should be the question on the ballot paper. I dread to think how the question will be worded if it is solely in the UK Government's power to chose it.

Whitewavemark2

The other worry now is that having taken away the right to peaceful protest - Patel now needs to be sought for permission to protest, we could well see an increase in riots as a result.

My biggest worry is that having taken away the right to peaceful protest we will end up with very unpeaceful protest - or worse. That may, of course, be the intention so they can clamp down even more.

Grandmabatty If your mother gets a postal vote, she will get round the visual identification filter. When he was not able to get to the polling station, my husband applied for one, and I did too, at the same time. I have used it at every election for the last ten years.

Your ballot paper is delivered by the postman, a couple of weeks before the election, along with detailed instructions how to seal it into the envelope so that it can be verified as coming from you, and you post it back to them to arrive before polling day. No need for extra identification, your signature is enough.

However, that doesn't sort it out if it then becomes common for other things to ask for photo identification.

I am in favour of peaceful protest.

I am not in favour of the criminals who in the name of protecting the earth have rendered the fuel pumps at Clacketts Lane Service Station on the M25 unusable by firstly smashing the display screens and secondly gluing themselves to the pumps..

Grandmabatty

She has no form of identification which has her face on it, which is a recent ploy of the government to stop illegal voters. Apparently there are almost no such beings but don't let that stand in the way of shrinking our rights.

Yes and when this was pointed out a few months back, several posters just couldn't see what the problem was. ? despite statistics showing a very small number of alleged votes being involved. The bottom line is that the majority of people who will effectively be disenfranchised are unlikely to be tory voters. Yet another chip away at democracy which just doesn't seem to bother people ?

Beckett

Where the same people vent their spleen to each other while everyone else ignores them

Well why don’t you respond then with more than one silly line ?

This is what gov.uk has published on the bill. What is missing that is causing concern to OP and others on this thread?

Grandmabatty

It is a very recent innovation of the government and yes, I live in UK, as does my mum. The local elections next week will be the last time we can use polling cards without a visual form of identification as well.

But smeone who does not have a usual photo ID (e.g. passport, driving licence) can apply for a free voting ID card. Why is this a problem?

Granny23

I wonder if this change in law has anything to do with the forthcoming 2nd Scottish Independence Referendum? For Indyref1 it was the electoral Commission which decided (after consultation with the Scottish and Westminster Governments) what should be the question on the ballot paper. I dread to think how the question will be worded if it is solely in the UK Government's power to chose it.

I thought Scottish election control was devolved to the Scottish Parliament, G23. Isn't it?

Grandmabatty

They've also effectively disenfranchised people who don't have a visual form of identification. My mum is 87. She doesn't have a driving licence, passport or bus pass. She has voted conscientiously for decades but now will be unable to? Another Tory idea which is ill thought out.

She will be able to vote. Read what gov.uk has published about photo ID for people who don't already have it.

This is what the Electoral Commission says about the proposed change to their powers:

"Our view

Effective enforcement when the rules are broken gives voters confidence in the electoral system.

"The UK Government does not consider this to be an area of work we should undertake. In the public interest, in order to fill any regulatory gap, the Police and Crown Prosecution Service will need to work with us to take forward appropriate prosecutions. This means prosecuting the full range of offences, from the lower order criminal offences often brought to light through our investigatory work, right through to the more significant offences. We would welcome the government making it clear in the passage of the Bill that this will be the case.
Voters have the right to expect that any political party or campaigner which deliberately or recklessly breaks electoral law will face prosecution."

What is wrong with prosecutions being the job of the Police and Crown Prosecution Service? If anyone can answer that I'd be grateful as I'm not yet seeing what the problem is.

This is what the Electoral Commission has published about its views on the bill.

For those who are offering suggestions about how my mum can access photo ID for voting, my point is she shouldn't have to. We have never had to show photo ID for voting and there is no reason why we should now.

Grandmabatty ?? ?? ??

Grandmabatty

For those who are offering suggestions about how my mum can access photo ID for voting, my point is she shouldn't have to. We have never had to show photo ID for voting and there is no reason why we should now.

That is a separate argument from where you said she couldn't vote any more, which is what I was replying to. I did not talk about whether I think needing photo ID is a good or bad thing.

That's mainly because I'm not sure how I think on it. Most other European countries require voter ID, and I think I read in stuff I was scanning earlier that it's already in place in Northern Ireland.

It would be good if someone could explain what the negatives are, apart from not having had to do it until now.

It would be good if someone could explain what the negatives are, apart from not having had to do it until now.

www.electoral-reform.org.uk/campaigns/upgrading-our-democracy/voter-id/

The biggest negative for me is the removal of trust between the government and the the electorate. It says that electors cannot be trusted in future to vote without cheating, despite the fact that the incidence of personation has always been so minimal as to be virtually non existent and in absolutely no way whatsoever having any influence at all on the result. It's an insult to the electorate, if you like...

The second is that it opens the door to more state control, taking away a freedom which has existed for the last 100 years by depriving people of their vote who, for whatever reason whatsoever, turn up at their polling station without photo ID. (Also a freedom being removed for not good reason at all). Saying that it's tough luck (as I know people will) doesn't justify it in any way at all.

These may seem very unimportant to many people, but the unnecessary restriction of individual freedoms and the assumption that the whole of the electorate are cheats and liars are not worthy of the mature democracy we pride ourselves on being.

(And the real killer is that postal voting is far more susceptible to cheating than is voting in person...)

GrannyGravy13

I am in favour of peaceful protest.

I am not in favour of the criminals who in the name of protecting the earth have rendered the fuel pumps at Clacketts Lane Service Station on the M25 unusable by firstly smashing the display screens and secondly gluing themselves to the pumps..

We have existing laws to deal with that. We do not need the Patel hammer.