Should we all Carry Identity of who we are. ?

The idea of ID cards to vote was a right-wing initiative to restrict the right to vote, nothing more, nothing less.
How would that work? Genuine question.
Most of the trial councils for the ID scheme are 'swing' councils. (with the exception of Bromley, I think)
If the system can prevent some potential labour voters from voting, the result will be: da da!
If the system is rolled out across the country the rest of the swing councils will be: da da!
 
Sponsored Links
Cashless society not so good for vulnerable members of society such as elderly. See also, certain autistic people, who struggle with the concept.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43645676

Also, I don't even have a smart phone. They are an additional security risk to one's personal data. I'll probably get one eventually, but wish to put it off for as long as possible.

As for ID cards: Lots of money, with little benefit. The only benefit I have heard is that it would have made it easier to find those behind the Madrid bombers after event. Note that it wouldn't have prevented it.

Let's try to keep life simple where we can. These ideas are not currently necessary, although they may one day be.
 
Last edited:
Given the TSB problems with data migration to a new system, reliance on IT for payment of everything would be pretty risky.
 
Most of the trial councils for the ID scheme are 'swing' councils. (with the exception of Bromley, I think)
If the system can prevent some potential labour voters from voting, the result will be: da da!
If the system is rolled out across the country the rest of the swing councils will be: da da!
Why would "potential labour voters" find it more difficult to demonstrate their right to vote, than any other group?
 
Sponsored Links
Why would "potential labour voters" find it more difficult to demonstrate their right to vote, than any other group?
What forms of photographic ID do you currently have?
The elections watchdog plans to introduce the need for photographic ID in time for the 2019 local government and European parliament elections.
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...te-general-election-polling-what-need-to-know
How did you attain, or obtain, those IDs? What was the cost of those IDs?

These laws, which require people to produce photographic ID before they can vote, are already in place in the US, and data collected so far on their impact suggests they reduce turnout among black, Hispanic and working-class voters.
... 0.0008% of the UK electorate committed voter fraud. For this paltry sum, the government is planning on disenfranchising the 7.5% of the electorate who don’t have ID – or 3.5 million people, the majority of whom are likely to be from disadvantaged and BAME backgrounds.
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...voting-booths-labour-disadvantaged-ballot-box


It is not the first time that some legislation has reduced the potential labour vote:
The move also follows a 2015 decision to introduce individual voter registration, which led to 1 million people dropping off the electoral register. Most of these voters were students and young people – and guess who they tend to vote for.
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...voting-booths-labour-disadvantaged-ballot-box

To use a a**e end type of phrase, "T'is all a conspiracy!"
 
Last edited:
I posted the facts in an earlier link. It's a non issue but it captures the hearts and minds of the gullible.
 
Given that technology seems to be the only thing improving year on year whilst everything else is dying, namely the world ecosystems we rely on, what makes anyone think the answer is more technology ?
 
Given that technology seems to be the only thing improving year on year whilst everything else is dying, namely the world ecosystems we rely on, what makes anyone think the answer is more technology ?


Me
 
Those who understand technology the least like MPs ironically have the biggest faith in a technological solution.
 
Rees Mogg might be well spoken but he's talking out of his rear when he says Max Fac solution. Thats Abbot levels of delusion. He harks back to a past that doesnt exist and talks about a future technology that doesnt exist. Why isnt he ever pressed more on his statements its as if people are in awe of his delivery rather than the content.
 
Given that technology seems to be the only thing improving year on year whilst everything else is dying, namely the world ecosystems we rely on, what makes anyone think the answer is more technology ?
That's an interesting point, but not one I agree with. Economic growth is the main driver to the destruction of the ecosystem, more than increases in technology or (as many claim) population growth.

Improvements in technology in this context enables more efficient use of resources which reduce pollution etc. It has also enabled safer substances, as we replace more harmful chemicals. The greater use of resources has increased pollution, due to economic growth.

When we see plastic in the ocean, the main driver behind this issue is economic growth, as we consume more.
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top