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

Whitewavemark2

Love it

Yes and

' It serves no purpose and is, frankly, tiresome.'

as said before, it is quite funny, in a weird sort of way.

Love it

MaizieD

Germanshepherdsmum

It’s fleurpepper’s sweeping statement about what a judge would do which is ridiculous. So much misunderstanding of a few words - manipulated by the press, whose agenda precisely suits some posters who apparently do not have the ability to question and think for themselves. The power of the press is truly astounding - and frightening.

Do you not agree with my previous analysis of the sentence that puts gerrymandering and voter ID into the same piece of continuous text, GSM?

It is a faithful transcript of what he said. You can check it against the clip that Fp posted the link to. It doesn't have to be put in context. 'as' is the key word in it. It's generally interpreted as 'like', 'just like', or 'just as'. Do you have a different interpretation?

'dare I say it' is just rhetorical padding.

So, 'like ... we found', 'just as ... we found', or even (though v. poor grammar) 'just like.... we found'

I'd love to see how a barrister or a judge would interpret this sentence...

Try reading my analysis of the accurate transcription of the key sentence in his speech, Allsorts. Watch the clip that *Fleurpepper' posted the link to if you don't believe it's an accurate transcription.

Then think very carefully about the meaning of every single word in it and how they connect to each other to convey a message. Then decide what the message is.

Then explain in detail how and why you interpret those words differently.

I deduced (sic) that is what he meant because that is what he said.

If you haven’t ID you don’t vote, end of.
Another post with incorrect information.
Maisie how you and others can deduct from his words that is was gerrymandering I don’t know, it’s your opinion not fact. Seeing what you want to see.
What GSM says is fact.

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.

That's not analysis, GSM. That's just an opinion.

Grantanow

I don't think Rees-Mogg's words allow for much variation of interpretation. He 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.'

Voter ID was not gerrymandering (in the sense that the latter implies fiddling the electoral boundaries or use of public money to shift voting intentions as happened in the Westminster case years ago) but the Mogg clearly accepts the Tory Party instituted Voter ID to bias the overall vote in their favour, a device which backfired because it prevented some older people from voting Tory. His English grammar needs improvement: we don't 'try and', we 'try to'.

Good post

I don't think Rees-Mogg's words allow for much variation of interpretation. He 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.'

Voter ID was not gerrymandering (in the sense that the latter implies fiddling the electoral boundaries or use of public money to shift voting intentions as happened in the Westminster case years ago) but the Mogg clearly accepts the Tory Party instituted Voter ID to bias the overall vote in their favour, a device which backfired because it prevented some older people from voting Tory. His English grammar needs improvement: we don't 'try and', we 'try to'.

Please feel free. I’ll budge up, though I think we’ll have plenty of room. 😉

Germanshepherdsmum

I have already given my analysis Maizie. I stand by it and do not intend to argue the point further. It serves no purpose and is, frankly, tiresome.

May I join you in the ‘me too’ corner? 😃

I have already given my analysis Maizie. I stand by it and do not intend to argue the point further. It serves no purpose and is, frankly, tiresome.

I can’t really believe there’s a good case to be made by allowing 16 year olds to have a vote, especially as most are still in school or further education until 18. I wish all political parties would leave it until 18, it’s early enough.I think it was done cynically in Scotland to appeal to young people who may well vote for independence.

Germanshepherdsmum

It’s fleurpepper’s sweeping statement about what a judge would do which is ridiculous. So much misunderstanding of a few words - manipulated by the press, whose agenda precisely suits some posters who apparently do not have the ability to question and think for themselves. The power of the press is truly astounding - and frightening.

Do you not agree with my previous analysis of the sentence that puts gerrymandering and voter ID into the same piece of continuous text, GSM?

It is a faithful transcript of what he said. You can check it against the clip that Fp posted the link to. It doesn't have to be put in context. 'as' is the key word in it. It's generally interpreted as 'like', 'just like', or 'just as'. Do you have a different interpretation?

'dare I say it' is just rhetorical padding.

So, 'like ... we found', 'just as ... we found', or even (though v. poor grammar) 'just like.... we found'

I'd love to see how a barrister or a judge would interpret this sentence...

I think it's incredibly amusing that the tories are worried that the franchise being extended will mean that an even smaller percentage of voters will vote for them. They really do know that about two thirds of voters detest them.

And they don't seem to have much confidence in being able to attract votes from the younger generation...

Extending the franchise won't be achievable until after the next GE anyway. Perhaps they might concentrate their minds on making themselves attractive to voters in the meantime...

It’s fleurpepper’s sweeping statement about what a judge would do which is ridiculous. So much misunderstanding of a few words - manipulated by the press, whose agenda precisely suits some posters who apparently do not have the ability to question and think for themselves. The power of the press is truly astounding - and frightening.

Look, I hardly care what random strangers online think of what JRM says or if they choose to distort or if the media leaves out preceding sentences.Plus as Casdon says, the damage is done, but in the interests of honesty the case needed to be put.Go and read the BBC online as they cover the entire thing.

Noodles? 😄
Noddle is used in England to mean your head.

Oreo

Fleurpepper

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

You really haven’t
Look at the online BBC news about this.Others here are also leaving out what he said, and it’s being reported that same way in some outlets.
Preceding the ‘parties that try and gerrymander’ was him accusing the Labour party of doing that exact thing, then came the sentence ‘parties that try and gerrymander end up finding ‘etc.
Casdon is right that the exact words won’t find their way into most people’s noddles tho.

Oh yes I have- pantomime indeed.

And many others did too and came to same conclusion.

Keep your condescending and frankly, ridiculous. noodles to yourself.

Germanshepherdsmum

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.

This.

Often in life we prefer what we want to see.Since I have no truck with JRM I have no bias about him, other than thinking he is weird.

Fleurpepper

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

You really haven’t
Look at the online BBC news about this.Others here are also leaving out what he said, and it’s being reported that same way in some outlets.
Preceding the ‘parties that try and gerrymander’ was him accusing the Labour party of doing that exact thing, then came the sentence ‘parties that try and gerrymander end up finding ‘etc.
Casdon is right that the exact words won’t find their way into most people’s noddles tho.

A good Judge would see right through the attempt by a defence lawyer misusing so-called 'bias' to distort clear evidence.

Germanshepherdsmum

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.

'Tis true.

Comes of being a scientist.

Nullius in verba

(Oh no, there's me boasting about my background again. I forgot. We're not doing that tonight.)

Germanshepherdsmum

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.

It’s not in the tabloids, it’s the more respectable news outlets that are all over it. From what I’ve seen so far, nobody anywhere has taken the stance you have, maybe that’s to come.

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.”

Note the absence of punctuation. Lawyers don't like punctuation, it leaves text less open to punctuation.
(In the course of some research I've been doing recently I've read a number of legal documents)

I would read the crucial part of this sentence as " ..finding their clever scheme comes back to bite them - as, dare I say, we found by insisting on insisting on voter ID..." Which for me makes it clear that he is equating the insistence on voter ID to one of those 'clever schemes'

But, in the absence of punctuation... well, read it how you like...