Jacob Reed-Mogg admits that voter ID was an attempt at gerrymandering by the tories!

Opal

Oh well, if the BBC reported it, then it must be true

I can if you wish quote every other media outlet that is reporting it. The list is very long indeed .

Actually it would be easier to say who isn’t reporting it

Germanshepherdsmum

I’m not concerned about that wwm. As a lawyer I can see the difficulty in interpreting his words as an admission of gerrymandering. If this were the subject of court action, which of course it won’t be, his defence would be that he was comparing the outcome of gerrymandering with the unintended outcome of the ID requirement. We view this in different ways so there’s absolutely no point in arguing about it.

I think you’re right tbh.
Don’t bother about posters saying things like ‘you’re outvoted’
Or ‘you’re funny’ cos things that strangers on forums say are never things to worry about.😉
It wasn’t gerrymandering as MaizieD has pointed out in any case.I have no time for JRM but he was pointing out that doing anything to change the way that we vote can have a bad effect on voting numbers.Which this first time it did and was bound to.Many older voters vote Labour like my Mum, and it was only me reminding her to take ID that she did.Anything new takes time to register, especially for seniors.It wasn’t lack of Conservative voters that caused Labour to do well in local elections and JRM must know that.

Oreo

Germanshepherdsmum

I’m not concerned about that wwm. As a lawyer I can see the difficulty in interpreting his words as an admission of gerrymandering. If this were the subject of court action, which of course it won’t be, his defence would be that he was comparing the outcome of gerrymandering with the unintended outcome of the ID requirement. We view this in different ways so there’s absolutely no point in arguing about it.

I think you’re right tbh.
Don’t bother about posters saying things like ‘you’re outvoted’
Or ‘you’re funny’ cos things that strangers on forums say are never things to worry about.😉
It wasn’t gerrymandering as MaizieD has pointed out in any case.I have no time for JRM but he was pointing out that doing anything to change the way that we vote can have a bad effect on voting numbers.Which this first time it did and was bound to.Many older voters vote Labour like my Mum, and it was only me reminding her to take ID that she did.Anything new takes time to register, especially for seniors.It wasn’t lack of Conservative voters that caused Labour to do well in local elections and JRM must know that.

How can his own words be 'misinterpreted' as saying just that ...
honestly?

"Parties that try and gerrymander end up finding that their clever scheme comes back to bite them, as dare I say we found by insisting on voter ID for elections.

"We found the people who didn't have ID were elderly and they by and large voted Conservative, so we made it hard for our own voters and we upset a system that worked perfectly well.'

Thanks Oreo. I can’t stand JRM either but whoever said the words, they need to be considered and analysed in isolation and without the bias of the headline.

My post above has no biased headline- it stands on its own, and is abundantly clear.

The damage is done now. He said the words, for all to watch on repeat, and interpret as they wish.

Fleurpepper
It’s the interpretation, English isn’t a language for the fainthearted. He didn’t say that the voter ID issue was an attempt to alter voting in favour of Conservatives, which in any case would have not worked, as many elderly people vote Labour.Asking for voter ID isn’t gerrymandering btw.
He is saying that it made it harder for Conservatives to vote as (in his opinion) they were more likely to vote that way.What it did was make it harder for anyone to vote for any political party but that doesn’t mean it’s a bad idea, just something new which will improve with time.Only the local elections so loads of time for anyone who really wants to vote to make sure they can for a general election.
When you think how many countries demand voter ID in Europe, it can’t be done just to benefit one particular party.

So it was true after all. Died in the wool Tory MP and ex-Minister says Tories introduced voter ID to give themselves an advantage in elections. Given the negligible personation offenses it was always obvious and now we have it from the horse's mouth. Disgraceful. It reminds me of the Tory gerrymandering in Westminster several years ago which the then District Auditor condemned. The Tories cannot be trusted.

Oreo

Fleurpepper
It’s the interpretation, English isn’t a language for the fainthearted. He didn’t say that the voter ID issue was an attempt to alter voting in favour of Conservatives, which in any case would have not worked, as many elderly people vote Labour.Asking for voter ID isn’t gerrymandering btw.
He is saying that it made it harder for Conservatives to vote as (in his opinion) they were more likely to vote that way.What it did was make it harder for anyone to vote for any political party but that doesn’t mean it’s a bad idea, just something new which will improve with time.Only the local elections so loads of time for anyone who really wants to vote to make sure they can for a general election.
When you think how many countries demand voter ID in Europe, it can’t be done just to benefit one particular party.

It’s another attempt at a snipe at the government, which has backfired directly on him. However, he supported the introduction of voter id when he was in the government.

Casdon

The damage is done now. He said the words, for all to watch on repeat, and interpret as they wish.

He’s a bit of an idiot at times, an eccentric who would be a liability to any party.
Yeah, you’re right as many people will interpret his words in the worst way possible without thinking about it.

Opal

Oh well, if the BBC reported it, then it must be true

Most other media are also reporting this. Their problem is that, apparently, it also stopped a lot of Tories from voting lol.

My area was in the pilot scheme, which just meant many people applied for postal votes.

Not sure what it achieves.🙄

Doesn't require much interpretation in my view!

oh dear 'It’s the interpretation, English isn’t a language for the fainthearted'

no interpretation required. And I am not fainthearted ;) nor do I have problems with English.

Do you need voter ID in your country Fleurpepper ?
Does it benefit one political party over another? Of course it doesn’t. All countries will eventually do the same, require ID.

Grantanow

So it was true after all. Died in the wool Tory MP and ex-Minister says Tories introduced voter ID to give themselves an advantage in elections. Given the negligible personation offenses it was always obvious and now we have it from the horse's mouth. Disgraceful. It reminds me of the Tory gerrymandering in Westminster several years ago which the then District Auditor condemned. The Tories cannot be trusted.

He said no such thing. And I’m sure you think it doesn’t require much interpretation because it’s what you want to believe he said. I have been trained to analyse words without bias and that’s what I have done, despite my dislike of JRM - which by your standards would have me agreeing with the headline, but I don’t.

Oreo

Do you need voter ID in your country Fleurpepper ?
Does it benefit one political party over another? Of course it doesn’t. All countries will eventually do the same, require ID.

Totally irrelevant to this post Oreo.

I vote in the UK, by post, no ID required.

Oreo

Fleurpepper
It’s the interpretation, English isn’t a language for the fainthearted. He didn’t say that the voter ID issue was an attempt to alter voting in favour of Conservatives, which in any case would have not worked, as many elderly people vote Labour.Asking for voter ID isn’t gerrymandering btw.
He is saying that it made it harder for Conservatives to vote as (in his opinion) they were more likely to vote that way.What it did was make it harder for anyone to vote for any political party but that doesn’t mean it’s a bad idea, just something new which will improve with time.Only the local elections so loads of time for anyone who really wants to vote to make sure they can for a general election.
When you think how many countries demand voter ID in Europe, it can’t be done just to benefit one particular party.

What it did was make it harder for anyone to vote for any political party but that doesn’t mean it’s a bad idea, just something new which will improve with time.

However, he DID say... and we upset a system that worked perfectly well.

I think it can be assumed from what he said that he did think it was a "bad idea"!

But one can never be quite sure with JRM!

Oreo

Casdon

The damage is done now. He said the words, for all to watch on repeat, and interpret as they wish.

He’s a bit of an idiot at times, an eccentric who would be a liability to any party.
Yeah, you’re right as many people will interpret his words in the worst way possible without thinking about it.

As many on here have.

Hilarious and astonishing how some people will bend over backwards to defend the indefensible. And deny the obvious. There was no call and no need to introduce voter ID at a cost to the taxpayer. There were more malefactors in Parliament than voter fraudsters. It was patently an attempt to undermine democracy in the Tories' favour, a ploy straight out of the Trumpian playback.

Playbook

fb.watch/ky9BpOA9s_/

clear as a bell (cracked!)

graykat

Hilarious and astonishing how some people will bend over backwards to defend the indefensible. And deny the obvious. There was no call and no need to introduce voter ID at a cost to the taxpayer. There were more malefactors in Parliament than voter fraudsters. It was patently an attempt to undermine democracy in the Tories' favour, a ploy straight out of the Trumpian playback.

This.

And now we are faced by people saying that what he said isn't really what he meant.

A few predictable and rather pathetic attempts to defend this. Many of us on here warned of the problems of voter id, but we were told that our imaginations were running riot......

Arguing about the number of angels on the head of a pin or whether or not it was gerrymandering (it wasn't), the fact remains that JRM has admitted that this has blown up in their face. Perhaps they should have listened to experts.

No bending over backwards. No defending the indefensible. Just a lawyer’s unbiased approach to the analysis of words spoken by someone they would not choose to defend. Which some find impossible to understand. Just as well that those who may be called upon to defend them don’t adopt their approach.

I would find it perfectly possible to understand, if there was any doubt or possibility of misinterpretation. There is not.