this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2023
41 points (93.6% liked)

UK Politics

3066 readers
220 users here now

General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both [email protected] and [email protected] .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

[email protected] appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Exclusive: All-party report on rules governing 2023 local elections calls voter ID system a ‘poisoned cure’

all 7 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 9point6 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Is anyone surprised? It's pretty universally understood that this is the outcome when you add restrictions to voting.

So universally understood, I struggle to see any way this wasn't the goal

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Still, they don't recommend repealing it. They said that more forms of ID need to be accepted.

Morons!

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


Controversial rules governing voter identification led to racial and disability discrimination at this year’s local elections in England, according to a damning report co-written by one of the former ministers responsible for introducing them.

MPs and peers on the all-party parliamentary group on democracy and the constitution will publish a report on Monday saying that the rules caused more harm than they prevented when they came into force in May, and will call for changes, including the acceptance of a greater range of ID documents.

The report was co-authored by Sir Robert Buckland, who was justice minister in 2021 when the bill to introduce the rules was first launched in parliament, and who subsequently helped vote them through.

The report says: “Their decision in that instance was … clearly discriminatory (and potentially unlawful) because they denied Andrea Barratt the right to cast a ballot purely on the basis of circumstances which arose as a direct result of a disability.”

An interim study published by the Electoral Commission earlier this year found at least 14,000 people had been denied a vote because they lacked the correct form of ID.

The report’s authors call for ministers to broaden the types of documents that can be accepted as identification, and to allow those who fail ID checks to sign a legally binding declaration instead confirming their identity.


The original article contains 660 words, the summary contains 224 words. Saved 66%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] Jackthelad 2 points 1 year ago

This is what happens when you bring in a daft system and ask people to police it when they're not trained to do so.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

They highlighted the case of Andrea Barrett, who is immunocompromised and was blocked from entering a polling station after refusing to remove her mask for an identification check.

Awful. No one should have to risk their life to vote.