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

NO, I have read and then listened to what he ACTUALLY said- did you?

Casdon

There are literally hundreds of reports in the press and on the TV and radio, apart from the Mail and the Express it is everywhere. Whatever GSM thinks personally will make no difference at all to what the public will understand from his speech. As I said earlier he has scored a massive own goal.

That’s the trouble - the public read a tabloid headline and insist it’s true. Plenty of evidence of that here from people I would have thought more able to think for themselves.

volver3

No no Dinahmo.

Presumed innocent until proven guilty.

He didn't mean that at all, despite the fact that he said it.

I've just been wondering. Do lawyers try to distract from the real important issue by concentrating on a minor, side issue, and driving people down the path of that discussion? Or am I just the suspicious type?

You are just the suspicious type.

Dinahmo

This is from the Independent. It mirrors his speech to the National Conservatism conference (as per the above link at 18.56)

"The Conservative government’s introduction of voter ID was an attempt at “gerrymandering” that backfired against the party, senior Tory Jacob Rees-Mogg has said.

The former cabinet minister said the policy – which saw voters required to have photo ID when voting at England’s local elections – had made it harder for elderly Tories to vote and “upset a system that worked perfectly well”.

Speaking at the National Conservatism conference on Monday, Mr Rees-Mogg said: “Parties that try and gerrymander end up finding 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,” he added."

Seems perfectly clear to me but then I'm not a lawyer.

Indeed you’re not. You know that I respect your profession - why trash mine?

Yes Volver you're right but not suspicious.

No no Dinahmo.

Presumed innocent until proven guilty.

He didn't mean that at all, despite the fact that he said it.

I've just been wondering. Do lawyers try to distract from the real important issue by concentrating on a minor, side issue, and driving people down the path of that discussion? Or am I just the suspicious type?

There are literally hundreds of reports in the press and on the TV and radio, apart from the Mail and the Express it is everywhere. Whatever GSM thinks personally will make no difference at all to what the public will understand from his speech. As I said earlier he has scored a massive own goal.

Germanshepherdsmum

Prejudices - absolutely the right word. Which, despite my dislike of JRM, I put aside in considering the words he was reported to have said. As I was trained to do.

Did you watch and listen

fb.watch/ky9BpOA9s_/

Nope, you don't need to be a lawyer, at all.

This is from the Independent. It mirrors his speech to the National Conservatism conference (as per the above link at 18.56)

"The Conservative government’s introduction of voter ID was an attempt at “gerrymandering” that backfired against the party, senior Tory Jacob Rees-Mogg has said.

The former cabinet minister said the policy – which saw voters required to have photo ID when voting at England’s local elections – had made it harder for elderly Tories to vote and “upset a system that worked perfectly well”.

Speaking at the National Conservatism conference on Monday, Mr Rees-Mogg said: “Parties that try and gerrymander end up finding 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,” he added."

Seems perfectly clear to me but then I'm not a lawyer.

Prejudices - absolutely the right word. Which, despite my dislike of JRM, I put aside in considering the words he was reported to have said. As I was trained to do.

Germanshepherdsmum

Dear God. Thank your lucky stars you didn’t try to make a career as a lawyer.

Volver's lack of legal training, is, like mine, and several other member's, property law's loss. We all have our abilities, skills, professional expertise, prejudices and opinions, and nobody's is worth less than anyone else's, despite what some may think.

I am no fan of JRM, I think he is a spineless man educated beyond his natural intelligence. I say this as a citizen, not as an educational psychologist or a teacher.

Germanshepherdsmum

Dear God. Thank your lucky stars you didn’t try to make a career as a lawyer.

Thank God indeed.

That was addressed to fleurpepper.

Fleurpepper

fb.watch/ky9BpOA9s_/

clear as a bell (cracked!)

Yup.

I've been speaking English for 70+ years now and I don't find it in the slightest bit difficult. Absolutely clear.

Dear God. Thank your lucky stars you didn’t try to make a career as a lawyer.

Some days I'm so glad I'm just a simple scientist without a lawyer's need to apply the ability for doublethink to every interaction on GN every day, just because they can.

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

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.

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.

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.

fb.watch/ky9BpOA9s_/

clear as a bell (cracked!)

Playbook

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.

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.

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!