Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Where the US leads we follow. More major changes being introduced without adequate oversight whilst in the middle of a pandemic. Up to 9 million voters, most likely to be non Tory voting, being left off the electoral roles in contradiction to recommendations. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/voter-registration-electoral-roll-conservatives-government-boundary-changes-a9575451.html" is this so they can't vote in future elections at all if not on the electoral roll? If so that's terrible. Or moved to a different constituency? I recall a proposal about reducing the number of MP's | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Where the US leads we follow. More major changes being introduced without adequate oversight whilst in the middle of a pandemic. Up to 9 million voters, most likely to be non Tory voting, being left off the electoral roles in contradiction to recommendations. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/voter-registration-electoral-roll-conservatives-government-boundary-changes-a9575451.html is this so they can't vote in future elections at all if not on the electoral roll? If so that's terrible. Or moved to a different constituency? I recall a proposal about reducing the number of MP's" It means that councils will not check registration every year for each property which encourages voting as it prompts people to register. The young and poor are lost likely to move more regularly and are also less likely to be Conservative voters. The Government have dropped the reduction in the number of constituencies. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Where the US leads we follow. More major changes being introduced without adequate oversight whilst in the middle of a pandemic. Up to 9 million voters, most likely to be non Tory voting, being left off the electoral roles in contradiction to recommendations. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/voter-registration-electoral-roll-conservatives-government-boundary-changes-a9575451.html is this so they can't vote in future elections at all if not on the electoral roll? If so that's terrible. Or moved to a different constituency? I recall a proposal about reducing the number of MP's It means that councils will not check registration every year for each property which encourages voting as it prompts people to register. The young and poor are lost likely to move more regularly and are also less likely to be Conservative voters. The Government have dropped the reduction in the number of constituencies." Ok not quite what I feared when first reading your post. Is it all councils now that will not check if people are registered. I assume you refer to the letter we get now and then asking people to confirm people if voting age in their household?. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Where the US leads we follow. More major changes being introduced without adequate oversight whilst in the middle of a pandemic. Up to 9 million voters, most likely to be non Tory voting, being left off the electoral roles in contradiction to recommendations. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/voter-registration-electoral-roll-conservatives-government-boundary-changes-a9575451.html" You clearly lack an understanding of this.Tory voters are allways more like to vote than labour voters,this is true of many democratic countries. There are many reasons for this but one major factors is at election times the tories are more organised at getting there core vote out. Labour historically fail to do this,even if they win the argument if they do not get these people to vote they will not win. I have worked with people in deprived areas and they say they do not vote because nobody cares about them.Well if the labour party does they should do something about it Nevermind putting down to conspiracy look for real reasons. Of course you will dismiss what I say I am sure | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Where the US leads we follow. More major changes being introduced without adequate oversight whilst in the middle of a pandemic. Up to 9 million voters, most likely to be non Tory voting, being left off the electoral roles in contradiction to recommendations. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/voter-registration-electoral-roll-conservatives-government-boundary-changes-a9575451.htmlYou clearly lack an understanding of this.Tory voters are allways more like to vote than labour voters,this is true of many democratic countries. There are many reasons for this but one major factors is at election times the tories are more organised at getting there core vote out. Labour historically fail to do this,even if they win the argument if they do not get these people to vote they will not win. I have worked with people in deprived areas and they say they do not vote because nobody cares about them.Well if the labour party does they should do something about it Nevermind putting down to conspiracy look for real reasons. Of course you will dismiss what I say I am sure " In your opinion does the claim made by the OP make Labour supporters less likely to register on the electoral roll and therefore not vote? Last time I had one of these forms it was very easy and quick to do online | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Perhaps we need to send a car round to pick up all these poor souls and carry them into the voting stations . My heart bleeds for the lazy sods, we all know if you want to vote we register, if you dont you cant vote, " That is what the tories do | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Where the US leads we follow. More major changes being introduced without adequate oversight whilst in the middle of a pandemic. Up to 9 million voters, most likely to be non Tory voting, being left off the electoral roles in contradiction to recommendations. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/voter-registration-electoral-roll-conservatives-government-boundary-changes-a9575451.htmlYou clearly lack an understanding of this.Tory voters are allways more like to vote than labour voters,this is true of many democratic countries. There are many reasons for this but one major factors is at election times the tories are more organised at getting there core vote out. Labour historically fail to do this,even if they win the argument if they do not get these people to vote they will not win. I have worked with people in deprived areas and they say they do not vote because nobody cares about them.Well if the labour party does they should do something about it Nevermind putting down to conspiracy look for real reasons. Of course you will dismiss what I say I am sure " That's not really true is it? You are telling me that in every general election, the Conservative party has had a higher share of the vote than Labour? There's never been a non-Conservative government? That's demonstrably untrue isn't it? This is not a "conspiracy". Why do you think that the Conservative party is changing the law so that Council's should not regularly check voter registration and therefore encourage engagement in democracy? As a bonus question, why should it be Labour that engages "people in deprived areas" that say "they do not vote because nobody cares about them"? Does the Tory Party not want to engage them for some reason? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Perhaps we need to send a car round to pick up all these poor souls and carry them into the voting stations . My heart bleeds for the lazy sods, we all know if you want to vote we register, if you dont you cant vote, " That is an unpleasant view you have of some people. Nothing more to say. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"am i missing something? you have to be over 18 to vote yea.why should it be anyone elses job to make sure your registerd i thought once you reach 18 your old enough to take control of your own life.wana vote register dont wana vote dont register.personal respnsibility and all that.i dont vote so dont register if i did want to vote id register myself its not rocket science" It's a big scam rigged | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If you think making people have to sort their own right to vote out is bad just wait till you hear about the postal vote scandal that happens in some constituencies. Oh, and Labour’s plan to reduce the voting age to 16... " Is that a bad thing? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If you think making people have to sort their own right to vote out is bad just wait till you hear about the postal vote scandal that happens in some constituencies. Oh, and Labour’s plan to reduce the voting age to 16... Is that a bad thing?" Are you suggesting electoral fraud isn’t a bad thing? As for the 16 proposal, it’s nothing but a blatant attempt to stack the odds in their favour for future elections | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If you think making people have to sort their own right to vote out is bad just wait till you hear about the postal vote scandal that happens in some constituencies. Oh, and Labour’s plan to reduce the voting age to 16... Is that a bad thing? Are you suggesting electoral fraud isn’t a bad thing? As for the 16 proposal, it’s nothing but a blatant attempt to stack the odds in their favour for future elections " I meant the voter age. You think 16 year old should not have the vote? Why is it an attempt to stack the odds in their favour? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If you think making people have to sort their own right to vote out is bad just wait till you hear about the postal vote scandal that happens in some constituencies. Oh, and Labour’s plan to reduce the voting age to 16... " How many people? Has it been acted on? I disagree with lowering the voting age. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"yep if u want to vote go register its not hard or confusing to do.dont register dont vote.ive not been registering for 20plus years.if i do ever feel like i want to vote again i will either register online or pop my head in the council offices and get em to send me the form out.its not the goverment of the days job to make sure people are registerd that responsibility is down to the individual" The very fact that a letter arrives to check voter registration is a prompt. Further mailing then arrives at local and general elections and reminds people of the opportunity to make a postal ballot. This all increases voter turnout. What is the benefit to democracy in reducing democratic participation? Why is finding a way to reduce the number of people likely to vote good? You don't care how the country is run anyway so why post about politics at all? Oh yes, it makes you happy to annoy people. Strange times  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"yep if u want to vote go register its not hard or confusing to do.dont register dont vote.ive not been registering for 20plus years.if i do ever feel like i want to vote again i will either register online or pop my head in the council offices and get em to send me the form out.its not the goverment of the days job to make sure people are registerd that responsibility is down to the individual The very fact that a letter arrives to check voter registration is a prompt. Further mailing then arrives at local and general elections and reminds people of the opportunity to make a postal ballot. This all increases voter turnout. What is the benefit to democracy in reducing democratic participation? Why is finding a way to reduce the number of people likely to vote good? You don't care how the country is run anyway so why post about politics at all? Oh yes, it makes you happy to annoy people. Strange times "Ok, so a letter is a prompt. However you are completely ignoring the fact that at election time you cannot escape the fact it is election time. It is in every news paper, all over social media, every news program, party political broadcasts on tv and radio, leaflets through your door, councillors knocking on your door, signs in peoples windows gardens and cars, posters on massive billboards, rallies held in towns and cities countrywide etc, etc. If people haven't taken the prompt already, a letter isn't going to make much difference, apart from wasting money, time and paper. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"yep if u want to vote go register its not hard or confusing to do.dont register dont vote.ive not been registering for 20plus years.if i do ever feel like i want to vote again i will either register online or pop my head in the council offices and get em to send me the form out.its not the goverment of the days job to make sure people are registerd that responsibility is down to the individual The very fact that a letter arrives to check voter registration is a prompt. Further mailing then arrives at local and general elections and reminds people of the opportunity to make a postal ballot. This all increases voter turnout. What is the benefit to democracy in reducing democratic participation? Why is finding a way to reduce the number of people likely to vote good? You don't care how the country is run anyway so why post about politics at all? Oh yes, it makes you happy to annoy people. Strange times
Ok, so a letter is a prompt. However you are completely ignoring the fact that at election time you cannot escape the fact it is election time.
It is in every news paper, all over social media, every news program, party political broadcasts on tv and radio, leaflets through your door, councillors knocking on your door, signs in peoples windows gardens and cars, posters on massive billboards, rallies held in towns and cities countrywide etc, etc.
If people haven't taken the prompt already, a letter isn't going to make much difference, apart from wasting money, time and paper.
"You cannot register to vote less than two weeks before an election. People may decide to vote or be sufficiently engaged after that point. You are saying that the only benefit of reducing the likelihood that people will vote is saving money? It is a coincidence that those most positively effected like this are the young and the less well off who happen to be less likely to vote for the party making this change? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If you think making people have to sort their own right to vote out is bad just wait till you hear about the postal vote scandal that happens in some constituencies. Oh, and Labour’s plan to reduce the voting age to 16... Is that a bad thing? Are you suggesting electoral fraud isn’t a bad thing? As for the 16 proposal, it’s nothing but a blatant attempt to stack the odds in their favour for future elections I meant the voter age. You think 16 year old should not have the vote? Why is it an attempt to stack the odds in their favour?" 16 year old are still children. They have little to no understanding of how the world works and are easily manipulated. They are hormonal and irrational and succeptable to peer pressure. In essence, they can easily be bought with empty promises of saving the pandas and free stuff. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"yep if u want to vote go register its not hard or confusing to do.dont register dont vote.ive not been registering for 20plus years.if i do ever feel like i want to vote again i will either register online or pop my head in the council offices and get em to send me the form out.its not the goverment of the days job to make sure people are registerd that responsibility is down to the individual The very fact that a letter arrives to check voter registration is a prompt. Further mailing then arrives at local and general elections and reminds people of the opportunity to make a postal ballot. This all increases voter turnout. What is the benefit to democracy in reducing democratic participation? Why is finding a way to reduce the number of people likely to vote good? You don't care how the country is run anyway so why post about politics at all? Oh yes, it makes you happy to annoy people. Strange times
Ok, so a letter is a prompt. However you are completely ignoring the fact that at election time you cannot escape the fact it is election time.
It is in every news paper, all over social media, every news program, party political broadcasts on tv and radio, leaflets through your door, councillors knocking on your door, signs in peoples windows gardens and cars, posters on massive billboards, rallies held in towns and cities countrywide etc, etc.
If people haven't taken the prompt already, a letter isn't going to make much difference, apart from wasting money, time and paper.
You cannot register to vote less than two weeks before an election. People may decide to vote or be sufficiently engaged after that point.
You are saying that the only benefit of reducing the likelihood that people will vote is saving money?
It is a coincidence that those most positively effected like this are the young and the less well off who happen to be less likely to vote for the party making this change?"No, i am saying that not sending the letter will have no effect on people engaging. The election campaign starts way earlier than two weeks before the election and there are reminders all over the tv, radio, social media etc telling people to register. It can be done easily online and trying to say that people not getting a letter denies them the opportunity to vote is nothing more than nonsense and a poor attempt at trying to put blame on the tories for labours poor turn out. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Out of interest, which of the people who have posted an opinion have actually read the article through?" I have, right up to the last paragraph, did you? Out of interest, do you think people can have an opinion on a subject without reading what you want them to? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Out of interest, which of the people who have posted an opinion have actually read the article through?" I have, right up to the last paragraph, did you? Out of interest, do you think people can have an opinion on a subject without reading what you want them to? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"yep if u want to vote go register its not hard or confusing to do.dont register dont vote.ive not been registering for 20plus years.if i do ever feel like i want to vote again i will either register online or pop my head in the council offices and get em to send me the form out.its not the goverment of the days job to make sure people are registerd that responsibility is down to the individual The very fact that a letter arrives to check voter registration is a prompt. Further mailing then arrives at local and general elections and reminds people of the opportunity to make a postal ballot. This all increases voter turnout. What is the benefit to democracy in reducing democratic participation? Why is finding a way to reduce the number of people likely to vote good? You don't care how the country is run anyway so why post about politics at all? Oh yes, it makes you happy to annoy people. Strange times "annoy people no.its an open firum on a site im a member of that means im free to post on it.i know you want everyone to agree with you but thats not the way things work.my opinion is just as valid as yours.will say it again its the individuals choice wether they vote or not.if someone is to dumb to know how to register mabey there not the sort of peeps you want voting.just think if all those thickos hadnt have been registerd brexit wouldnt have happend | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"yep if u want to vote go register its not hard or confusing to do.dont register dont vote.ive not been registering for 20plus years.if i do ever feel like i want to vote again i will either register online or pop my head in the council offices and get em to send me the form out.its not the goverment of the days job to make sure people are registerd that responsibility is down to the individual The very fact that a letter arrives to check voter registration is a prompt. Further mailing then arrives at local and general elections and reminds people of the opportunity to make a postal ballot. This all increases voter turnout. What is the benefit to democracy in reducing democratic participation? Why is finding a way to reduce the number of people likely to vote good? You don't care how the country is run anyway so why post about politics at all? Oh yes, it makes you happy to annoy people. Strange times
annoy people no.its an open firum on a site im a member of that means im free to post on it.i know you want everyone to agree with you but thats not the way things work.my opinion is just as valid as yours.will say it again its the individuals choice wether they vote or not.if someone is to dumb to know how to register mabey there not the sort of peeps you want voting.just think if all those thickos hadnt have been registerd brexit wouldnt have happend "It isn't about being "dumb". It's about it being a priority at a given point in time. Registering to vote is not as high a priority when moving house as getting your electricity connected. It is not a priority until there is an election. It is very easy to oust something like this off until it is too late. Once again, what is the benefit to society of reducing voter participation in this way? It's a direct question. Can you answer directly or will you "answer" like the politicians you claim to despise? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"yep if u want to vote go register its not hard or confusing to do.dont register dont vote.ive not been registering for 20plus years.if i do ever feel like i want to vote again i will either register online or pop my head in the council offices and get em to send me the form out.its not the goverment of the days job to make sure people are registerd that responsibility is down to the individual The very fact that a letter arrives to check voter registration is a prompt. Further mailing then arrives at local and general elections and reminds people of the opportunity to make a postal ballot. This all increases voter turnout. What is the benefit to democracy in reducing democratic participation? Why is finding a way to reduce the number of people likely to vote good? You don't care how the country is run anyway so why post about politics at all? Oh yes, it makes you happy to annoy people. Strange times
annoy people no.its an open firum on a site im a member of that means im free to post on it.i know you want everyone to agree with you but thats not the way things work.my opinion is just as valid as yours.will say it again its the individuals choice wether they vote or not.if someone is to dumb to know how to register mabey there not the sort of peeps you want voting.just think if all those thickos hadnt have been registerd brexit wouldnt have happend
It isn't about being "dumb".
It's about it being a priority at a given point in time. Registering to vote is not as high a priority when moving house as getting your electricity connected. It is not a priority until there is an election. It is very easy to oust something like this off until it is too late.
Once again, what is the benefit to society of reducing voter participation in this way?
It's a direct question. Can you answer directly or will you "answer" like the politicians you claim to despise?"I will give you a direct question as you have chosen to ignore/avoid my previous points. Why do you think a letter to remind someone to vote makes a difference when people have already ignored the numerous prompts already mentioned and the unavoidable circus that surrounds an election? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"yep if u want to vote go register its not hard or confusing to do.dont register dont vote.ive not been registering for 20plus years.if i do ever feel like i want to vote again i will either register online or pop my head in the council offices and get em to send me the form out.its not the goverment of the days job to make sure people are registerd that responsibility is down to the individual The very fact that a letter arrives to check voter registration is a prompt. Further mailing then arrives at local and general elections and reminds people of the opportunity to make a postal ballot. This all increases voter turnout. What is the benefit to democracy in reducing democratic participation? Why is finding a way to reduce the number of people likely to vote good? You don't care how the country is run anyway so why post about politics at all? Oh yes, it makes you happy to annoy people. Strange times
annoy people no.its an open firum on a site im a member of that means im free to post on it.i know you want everyone to agree with you but thats not the way things work.my opinion is just as valid as yours.will say it again its the individuals choice wether they vote or not.if someone is to dumb to know how to register mabey there not the sort of peeps you want voting.just think if all those thickos hadnt have been registerd brexit wouldnt have happend
It isn't about being "dumb".
It's about it being a priority at a given point in time. Registering to vote is not as high a priority when moving house as getting your electricity connected. It is not a priority until there is an election. It is very easy to oust something like this off until it is too late.
Once again, what is the benefit to society of reducing voter participation in this way?
It's a direct question. Can you answer directly or will you "answer" like the politicians you claim to despise?"haha ive answerd your question already.why is it the goverment of the times problem to make sure if people are registerd or notif you wana vote you will make sure your registerd if u aint botherd you wont register.why do you think its the goverments job to make sure.u seem to think the goverment should hold everyones hand every step of there life.peeps should really take ressponsibilty for themselves sometime you know.u just dint like peoples answers if they dont answer the way you want em to.had a teacher lime you at school once.used to laugh at him aswell xx | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"yep if u want to vote go register its not hard or confusing to do.dont register dont vote.ive not been registering for 20plus years.if i do ever feel like i want to vote again i will either register online or pop my head in the council offices and get em to send me the form out.its not the goverment of the days job to make sure people are registerd that responsibility is down to the individual The very fact that a letter arrives to check voter registration is a prompt. Further mailing then arrives at local and general elections and reminds people of the opportunity to make a postal ballot. This all increases voter turnout. What is the benefit to democracy in reducing democratic participation? Why is finding a way to reduce the number of people likely to vote good? You don't care how the country is run anyway so why post about politics at all? Oh yes, it makes you happy to annoy people. Strange times
annoy people no.its an open firum on a site im a member of that means im free to post on it.i know you want everyone to agree with you but thats not the way things work.my opinion is just as valid as yours.will say it again its the individuals choice wether they vote or not.if someone is to dumb to know how to register mabey there not the sort of peeps you want voting.just think if all those thickos hadnt have been registerd brexit wouldnt have happend
It isn't about being "dumb".
It's about it being a priority at a given point in time. Registering to vote is not as high a priority when moving house as getting your electricity connected. It is not a priority until there is an election. It is very easy to oust something like this off until it is too late.
Once again, what is the benefit to society of reducing voter participation in this way?
It's a direct question. Can you answer directly or will you "answer" like the politicians you claim to despise?"More Tory bashing scrapping the bottom of the barrel now. It's not hard to check if you are on the electoral roll more non news.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Surely it's the individuals responsibility to make sure they are on the Electrol list. You know way in advance when general and local elections are. If you turn 18 you know you have to register. If you move you know to have to register. Even if you forget all that there is so much campaigning going on any sane person must realise they need to make sure they are registered. To try to blame a particular party for someone not being on the Electrol list is quite frankly stupid.! " yep true but some people love trying to find stuff to kick the tories with. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Where the US leads we follow. More major changes being introduced without adequate oversight whilst in the middle of a pandemic. Up to 9 million voters, most likely to be non Tory voting, being left off the electoral roles in contradiction to recommendations. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/voter-registration-electoral-roll-conservatives-government-boundary-changes-a9575451.htmlYou clearly lack an understanding of this.Tory voters are allways more like to vote than labour voters,this is true of many democratic countries. There are many reasons for this but one major factors is at election times the tories are more organised at getting there core vote out. Labour historically fail to do this,even if they win the argument if they do not get these people to vote they will not win. I have worked with people in deprived areas and they say they do not vote because nobody cares about them.Well if the labour party does they should do something about it Nevermind putting down to conspiracy look for real reasons. Of course you will dismiss what I say I am sure That's not really true is it? You are telling me that in every general election, the Conservative party has had a higher share of the vote than Labour? There's never been a non-Conservative government? That's demonstrably untrue isn't it? This is not a "conspiracy". Why do you think that the Conservative party is changing the law so that Council's should not regularly check voter registration and therefore encourage engagement in democracy? As a bonus question, why should it be Labour that engages "people in deprived areas" that say "they do not vote because nobody cares about them"? Does the Tory Party not want to engage them for some reason?" Lets make this simple. Voter turn out is not the same as winning the vote. For example if we say that 90% of tory supporters turns out to vote but only 50% of labour supporters turned out to vote this does not equate to tories winning. If tories had 10 supporters then 9 (90%) would have turned up to vote. And if labour had 20 supporters then 10 (50%) would have turned up to vote and labour would win. As for your last point, you previously claimed that the ending of reminders disproportionately affects labour voters, if you and labour want to stake claim for all of the non registered being labour supporters then damn right it is your problem to engage these people. In reality the claim that they are labour supporters is as bogus as your logic. There are many reasons why people CHOOSE not to vote ranging from not feeling represented, apathy, protest, feeling ill informed or mislead and also not wanting to appear on the voters register to avoid debt collectors etc. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Surely it's the individuals responsibility to make sure they are on the Electrol list. You know way in advance when general and local elections are. If you turn 18 you know you have to register. If you move you know to have to register. Even if you forget all that there is so much campaigning going on any sane person must realise they need to make sure they are registered. To try to blame a particular party for someone not being on the Electrol list is quite frankly stupid.! " 
Looking very much like getting the excuses in early in case Labour loose the next General election. Always got to be someone else's fault. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
Major changes being introduced during a pandemic.
"between 8.3 and 9.4 million people are missing from the rolls, or wrongly registered, mainly the young, renters, in urban areas – those least likely to back Boris Johnson’s party.
They will now be excluded when the boundaries of parliamentary constituencies are redrawn for the next general election, potentially skewing the crucial process.
Does anyone think that this is a good thing?
"The parliamentary boundaries bill, currently before the Commons, will no longer slash the number of seats from 650 to 600 – after Tory backbench opposition – but will make big changes to the shape of seats.
Previously, the Boundary Commissions’ proposals would have been scrutinised and voted on by MPs, but they will now become law automatically – under a separate, also controversial switch."
No scrutiny. Is that a good thing?
Is anything that reduces voter engagement or turnout a good thing? Apparently for some it is. I don't know why though. Perhaps you could explain? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Once again way off the topic, either deliberately or out of ignorance. Someone even claimed to have read the article
Major changes being introduced during a pandemic.
"between 8.3 and 9.4 million people are missing from the rolls, or wrongly registered, mainly the young, renters, in urban areas – those least likely to back Boris Johnson’s party.
They will now be excluded when the boundaries of parliamentary constituencies are redrawn for the next general election, potentially skewing the crucial process.
Does anyone think that this is a good thing?
"The parliamentary boundaries bill, currently before the Commons, will no longer slash the number of seats from 650 to 600 – after Tory backbench opposition – but will make big changes to the shape of seats.
Previously, the Boundary Commissions’ proposals would have been scrutinised and voted on by MPs, but they will now become law automatically – under a separate, also controversial switch."
No scrutiny. Is that a good thing?
Is anything that reduces voter engagement or turnout a good thing? Apparently for some it is. I don't know why though. Perhaps you could explain?"Makes a post about voting reminders being stopped and then complains people are going off topic when they reply and comment about it, and then changes the subject whilst ignoring and avoiding the points made on the topic he started... Oh the irony! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If people cannot be bothered to register to vote the they cannot moan about it. It’s real easy takes less than 5 mins online and the argument about not having access is bollux you can even get to an Internet cafe to do it " Free wifi at library,s too there really is no excuse not to register if you want to.Nice try with your usual Boris bashing posts but you really haven't thought this one through. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Once again way off the topic, either deliberately or out of ignorance. Someone even claimed to have read the article
Major changes being introduced during a pandemic.
"between 8.3 and 9.4 million people are missing from the rolls, or wrongly registered, mainly the young, renters, in urban areas – those least likely to back Boris Johnson’s party.
They will now be excluded when the boundaries of parliamentary constituencies are redrawn for the next general election, potentially skewing the crucial process.
Does anyone think that this is a good thing?
"The parliamentary boundaries bill, currently before the Commons, will no longer slash the number of seats from 650 to 600 – after Tory backbench opposition – but will make big changes to the shape of seats.
Previously, the Boundary Commissions’ proposals would have been scrutinised and voted on by MPs, but they will now become law automatically – under a separate, also controversial switch."
No scrutiny. Is that a good thing?
Is anything that reduces voter engagement or turnout a good thing? Apparently for some it is. I don't know why though. Perhaps you could explain?
Makes a post about voting reminders being stopped and then complains people are going off topic when they reply and comment about it, and then changes the subject whilst ignoring and avoiding the points made on the topic he started...
Oh the irony!
"Actually, that was a response to a specific post. Not the point of the thread. Did you miss that? Clearly the actual purpose of the thread is of no interest to you. Understood | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If people cannot be bothered to register to vote the they cannot moan about it. It’s real easy takes less than 5 mins online and the argument about not having access is bollux you can even get to an Internet cafe to do it " Yep, ignoring the point again. I will take it that reducing voter engagement is fine by you. Understood | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If people cannot be bothered to register to vote the they cannot moan about it. It’s real easy takes less than 5 mins online and the argument about not having access is bollux you can even get to an Internet cafe to do it Free wifi at library,s too there really is no excuse not to register if you want to.Nice try with your usual Boris bashing posts but you really haven't thought this one through. "Determinedly focusing on just one thing. Not read the article then? Not responding to the direct quotes either? Not a surprise | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If people cannot be bothered to register to vote the they cannot moan about it. It’s real easy takes less than 5 mins online and the argument about not having access is bollux you can even get to an Internet cafe to do it Yep, ignoring the point again. I will take it that reducing voter engagement is fine by you. Understood "Like it or not there are a lot of people out there who just are not interested in politics and are just happy to get on with their lives because no matter who is in government nothing changes for them. Not everyone wants to change the world  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If people cannot be bothered to register to vote the they cannot moan about it. It’s real easy takes less than 5 mins online and the argument about not having access is bollux you can even get to an Internet cafe to do it Free wifi at library,s too there really is no excuse not to register if you want to.Nice try with your usual Boris bashing posts but you really haven't thought this one through.
Determinedly focusing on just one thing.
Not read the article then? Not responding to the direct quotes either?
Not a surprise "Yes i read it and have replied but i will repeat myself,there is nothing stopping people registering to vote.If people cant be bothered that is their problem not the governments,now if it was compulsory to vote like in Austria i would agree it would be up to the government to make sure everyone was registered but its not.If some lazy fuckers cant get off their arses (in fact they dont need to you can do it online) thats their problem not the governments. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Once again way off the topic, either deliberately or out of ignorance. Someone even claimed to have read the article
Major changes being introduced during a pandemic.
"between 8.3 and 9.4 million people are missing from the rolls, or wrongly registered, mainly the young, renters, in urban areas – those least likely to back Boris Johnson’s party.
They will now be excluded when the boundaries of parliamentary constituencies are redrawn for the next general election, potentially skewing the crucial process.
Does anyone think that this is a good thing?
"The parliamentary boundaries bill, currently before the Commons, will no longer slash the number of seats from 650 to 600 – after Tory backbench opposition – but will make big changes to the shape of seats.
Previously, the Boundary Commissions’ proposals would have been scrutinised and voted on by MPs, but they will now become law automatically – under a separate, also controversial switch."
No scrutiny. Is that a good thing?
Is anything that reduces voter engagement or turnout a good thing? Apparently for some it is. I don't know why though. Perhaps you could explain?
Makes a post about voting reminders being stopped and then complains people are going off topic when they reply and comment about it, and then changes the subject whilst ignoring and avoiding the points made on the topic he started...
Oh the irony!
Actually, that was a response to a specific post. Not the point of the thread.
Did you miss that?
Clearly the actual purpose of the thread is of no interest to you.
Understood "One thing, your first post and the point of this thread was about the 9m people being left of the register which in your very next post you made reference to, and stated your problem with them no longer receiving a reminder. It couldn't be more on topic. But you want to now shy away from it as it has been shown to be a load of guff.. Understood... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If people cannot be bothered to register to vote the they cannot moan about it. It’s real easy takes less than 5 mins online and the argument about not having access is bollux you can even get to an Internet cafe to do it Yep, ignoring the point again. I will take it that reducing voter engagement is fine by you. Understood
Like it or not there are a lot of people out there who just are not interested in politics and are just happy to get on with their lives because no matter who is in government nothing changes for them.
Not everyone wants to change the world "So why are you posting on here? To tell me that? Thank you so much | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"young viters will be affected lol good one is this the same young voters that were gona sweep jezza into downing st? the same young viters who didnt bother voting in the referendum? they dont seem to bother wen like u claim its easier to get registerd than it will be in future." Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing? Is reduced voter engagement a good thing? We can go from there  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If people cannot be bothered to register to vote the they cannot moan about it. It’s real easy takes less than 5 mins online and the argument about not having access is bollux you can even get to an Internet cafe to do it Free wifi at library,s too there really is no excuse not to register if you want to.Nice try with your usual Boris bashing posts but you really haven't thought this one through.
Determinedly focusing on just one thing.
Not read the article then? Not responding to the direct quotes either?
Not a surprise Yes i read it and have replied but i will repeat myself,there is nothing stopping people registering to vote.If people cant be bothered that is their problem not the governments,now if it was compulsory to vote like in Austria i would agree it would be up to the government to make sure everyone was registered but its not.If some lazy fuckers cant get off their arses (in fact they dont need to you can do it online) thats their problem not the governments."Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing? Is reduced voter engagement a good thing? Why so difficult to reply directly to a direct question? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Once again way off the topic, either deliberately or out of ignorance. Someone even claimed to have read the article
Major changes being introduced during a pandemic.
"between 8.3 and 9.4 million people are missing from the rolls, or wrongly registered, mainly the young, renters, in urban areas – those least likely to back Boris Johnson’s party.
They will now be excluded when the boundaries of parliamentary constituencies are redrawn for the next general election, potentially skewing the crucial process.
Does anyone think that this is a good thing?
"The parliamentary boundaries bill, currently before the Commons, will no longer slash the number of seats from 650 to 600 – after Tory backbench opposition – but will make big changes to the shape of seats.
Previously, the Boundary Commissions’ proposals would have been scrutinised and voted on by MPs, but they will now become law automatically – under a separate, also controversial switch."
No scrutiny. Is that a good thing?
Is anything that reduces voter engagement or turnout a good thing? Apparently for some it is. I don't know why though. Perhaps you could explain?
Makes a post about voting reminders being stopped and then complains people are going off topic when they reply and comment about it, and then changes the subject whilst ignoring and avoiding the points made on the topic he started...
Oh the irony!
Actually, that was a response to a specific post. Not the point of the thread.
Did you miss that?
Clearly the actual purpose of the thread is of no interest to you.
Understood
One thing, your first post and the point of this thread was about the 9m people being left of the register which in your very next post you made reference to, and stated your problem with them no longer receiving a reminder.
It couldn't be more on topic.
But you want to now shy away from it as it has been shown to be a load of guff..
Understood...
"The whole paragraph about major changes without Parliamentary oversight lost on you then?
My next post replied directly to a reply. That is correct isn't it? 
Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?
Is reduced voter engagement a good thing? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Once again way off the topic, either deliberately or out of ignorance. Someone even claimed to have read the article
Major changes being introduced during a pandemic.
"between 8.3 and 9.4 million people are missing from the rolls, or wrongly registered, mainly the young, renters, in urban areas – those least likely to back Boris Johnson’s party.
They will now be excluded when the boundaries of parliamentary constituencies are redrawn for the next general election, potentially skewing the crucial process.
Does anyone think that this is a good thing?
"The parliamentary boundaries bill, currently before the Commons, will no longer slash the number of seats from 650 to 600 – after Tory backbench opposition – but will make big changes to the shape of seats.
Previously, the Boundary Commissions’ proposals would have been scrutinised and voted on by MPs, but they will now become law automatically – under a separate, also controversial switch."
No scrutiny. Is that a good thing?
Is anything that reduces voter engagement or turnout a good thing? Apparently for some it is. I don't know why though. Perhaps you could explain?
Makes a post about voting reminders being stopped and then complains people are going off topic when they reply and comment about it, and then changes the subject whilst ignoring and avoiding the points made on the topic he started...
Oh the irony!
Actually, that was a response to a specific post. Not the point of the thread.
Did you miss that?
Clearly the actual purpose of the thread is of no interest to you.
Understood
One thing, your first post and the point of this thread was about the 9m people being left of the register which in your very next post you made reference to, and stated your problem with them no longer receiving a reminder.
It couldn't be more on topic.
But you want to now shy away from it as it has been shown to be a load of guff..
Understood...
The whole paragraph about major changes without Parliamentary oversight lost on you then?
My next post replied directly to a reply. That is correct isn't it?
Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?
Is reduced voter engagement a good thing? "It was to a reply wanting clarification about what your point was... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If people cannot be bothered to register to vote the they cannot moan about it. It’s real easy takes less than 5 mins online and the argument about not having access is bollux you can even get to an Internet cafe to do it Free wifi at library,s too there really is no excuse not to register if you want to.Nice try with your usual Boris bashing posts but you really haven't thought this one through.
Determinedly focusing on just one thing.
Not read the article then? Not responding to the direct quotes either?
Not a surprise Yes i read it and have replied but i will repeat myself,there is nothing stopping people registering to vote.If people cant be bothered that is their problem not the governments,now if it was compulsory to vote like in Austria i would agree it would be up to the government to make sure everyone was registered but its not.If some lazy fuckers cant get off their arses (in fact they dont need to you can do it online) thats their problem not the governments.
Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?
Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?
Why so difficult to reply directly to a direct question? "Governments are always redrawing bounderies whatever party and reducing mp,s can only be a good thing.Wish they could do it with the house of lords too.Reduced voter engagement is the voters fault its not hard to register.I dont know what data they are using do you? but would guess the last electoral roll which is pretty recent data as we have only recently had an election. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Once again way off the topic, either deliberately or out of ignorance. Someone even claimed to have read the article
Major changes being introduced during a pandemic.
"between 8.3 and 9.4 million people are missing from the rolls, or wrongly registered, mainly the young, renters, in urban areas – those least likely to back Boris Johnson’s party.
They will now be excluded when the boundaries of parliamentary constituencies are redrawn for the next general election, potentially skewing the crucial process.
Does anyone think that this is a good thing?
"The parliamentary boundaries bill, currently before the Commons, will no longer slash the number of seats from 650 to 600 – after Tory backbench opposition – but will make big changes to the shape of seats.
Previously, the Boundary Commissions’ proposals would have been scrutinised and voted on by MPs, but they will now become law automatically – under a separate, also controversial switch."
No scrutiny. Is that a good thing?
Is anything that reduces voter engagement or turnout a good thing? Apparently for some it is. I don't know why though. Perhaps you could explain?"People missing of the register is not good. Why are they missing from the register? Is it all about the boundary changes and as you say no automatic reminders. I assume your point is the boundary has changed but there residence remained in the same place. Without a reminder how would they know? Please let me know if I misinterpreted | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Once again way off the topic, either deliberately or out of ignorance. Someone even claimed to have read the article
Major changes being introduced during a pandemic.
"between 8.3 and 9.4 million people are missing from the rolls, or wrongly registered, mainly the young, renters, in urban areas – those least likely to back Boris Johnson’s party.
They will now be excluded when the boundaries of parliamentary constituencies are redrawn for the next general election, potentially skewing the crucial process.
Does anyone think that this is a good thing?
"The parliamentary boundaries bill, currently before the Commons, will no longer slash the number of seats from 650 to 600 – after Tory backbench opposition – but will make big changes to the shape of seats.
Previously, the Boundary Commissions’ proposals would have been scrutinised and voted on by MPs, but they will now become law automatically – under a separate, also controversial switch."
No scrutiny. Is that a good thing?
Is anything that reduces voter engagement or turnout a good thing? Apparently for some it is. I don't know why though. Perhaps you could explain?
Makes a post about voting reminders being stopped and then complains people are going off topic when they reply and comment about it, and then changes the subject whilst ignoring and avoiding the points made on the topic he started...
Oh the irony!
Actually, that was a response to a specific post. Not the point of the thread.
Did you miss that?
Clearly the actual purpose of the thread is of no interest to you.
Understood
One thing, your first post and the point of this thread was about the 9m people being left of the register which in your very next post you made reference to, and stated your problem with them no longer receiving a reminder.
It couldn't be more on topic.
But you want to now shy away from it as it has been shown to be a load of guff..
Understood...
The whole paragraph about major changes without Parliamentary oversight lost on you then?
My next post replied directly to a reply. That is correct isn't it?
Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?
Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?
It was to a reply wanting clarification about what your point was..."Here we go. Find a minor point for a micro-victory
I took the poster to be referring to the second part of my post. That's what I responded to.
I have clarified. You are welcome
Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?
Is reduced voter engagement a good thing? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"young viters will be affected lol good one is this the same young voters that were gona sweep jezza into downing st? the same young viters who didnt bother voting in the referendum? they dont seem to bother wen like u claim its easier to get registerd than it will be in future. Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing? Is reduced voter engagement a good thing? We can go from there "redrawing boundaries wat you meen like the last labour gov did to skew it in there favour they all do it.really think u should of started a new thread .u didnt like the answers you got so changed the question.like i told u before if peeps are to stupid to make sure there registerd thats there lookour.after all u need to be an adult to vote.if u get to 18 and still need ya hand holding well all hope is lost for ya | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If people cannot be bothered to register to vote the they cannot moan about it. It’s real easy takes less than 5 mins online and the argument about not having access is bollux you can even get to an Internet cafe to do it Free wifi at library,s too there really is no excuse not to register if you want to.Nice try with your usual Boris bashing posts but you really haven't thought this one through.
Determinedly focusing on just one thing.
Not read the article then? Not responding to the direct quotes either?
Not a surprise Yes i read it and have replied but i will repeat myself,there is nothing stopping people registering to vote.If people cant be bothered that is their problem not the governments,now if it was compulsory to vote like in Austria i would agree it would be up to the government to make sure everyone was registered but its not.If some lazy fuckers cant get off their arses (in fact they dont need to you can do it online) thats their problem not the governments.
Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?
Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?
Why so difficult to reply directly to a direct question? Governments are always redrawing bounderies whatever party and reducing mp,s can only be a good thing.Wish they could do it with the house of lords too.Reduced voter engagement is the voters fault its not hard to register.I dont know what data they are using do you? but would guess the last electoral roll which is pretty recent data as we have only recently had an election. "MP numbers are not being reduced. Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data a good thing? Is no Parliamentary oversight of this process a good thing? Is reduced voter engagement a good thing? Why so difficult to answer directly? Yes/no would actually be fine | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If people cannot be bothered to register to vote the they cannot moan about it. It’s real easy takes less than 5 mins online and the argument about not having access is bollux you can even get to an Internet cafe to do it Free wifi at library,s too there really is no excuse not to register if you want to.Nice try with your usual Boris bashing posts but you really haven't thought this one through.
Determinedly focusing on just one thing.
Not read the article then? Not responding to the direct quotes either?
Not a surprise Yes i read it and have replied but i will repeat myself,there is nothing stopping people registering to vote.If people cant be bothered that is their problem not the governments,now if it was compulsory to vote like in Austria i would agree it would be up to the government to make sure everyone was registered but its not.If some lazy fuckers cant get off their arses (in fact they dont need to you can do it online) thats their problem not the governments.
Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?
Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?
Why so difficult to reply directly to a direct question? Governments are always redrawing bounderies whatever party and reducing mp,s can only be a good thing.Wish they could do it with the house of lords too.Reduced voter engagement is the voters fault its not hard to register.I dont know what data they are using do you? but would guess the last electoral roll which is pretty recent data as we have only recently had an election.
MP numbers are not being reduced.
Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data a good thing?
Is no Parliamentary oversight of this process a good thing?
Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?
Why so difficult to answer directly? Yes/no would actually be fine "Who exactly is redrawing the constituency boundaries. Is it mp's or civil service? Are they free to make it up as they please or do they have to work within set parameters? Who is stopping people who want to vote making sure they are able to vote? Parliamentary oversight is preferable yes. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If people cannot be bothered to register to vote the they cannot moan about it. It’s real easy takes less than 5 mins online and the argument about not having access is bollux you can even get to an Internet cafe to do it Free wifi at library,s too there really is no excuse not to register if you want to.Nice try with your usual Boris bashing posts but you really haven't thought this one through.
Determinedly focusing on just one thing.
Not read the article then? Not responding to the direct quotes either?
Not a surprise Yes i read it and have replied but i will repeat myself,there is nothing stopping people registering to vote.If people cant be bothered that is their problem not the governments,now if it was compulsory to vote like in Austria i would agree it would be up to the government to make sure everyone was registered but its not.If some lazy fuckers cant get off their arses (in fact they dont need to you can do it online) thats their problem not the governments.
Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?
Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?
Why so difficult to reply directly to a direct question? Governments are always redrawing bounderies whatever party and reducing mp,s can only be a good thing.Wish they could do it with the house of lords too.Reduced voter engagement is the voters fault its not hard to register.I dont know what data they are using do you? but would guess the last electoral roll which is pretty recent data as we have only recently had an election.
MP numbers are not being reduced.
Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data a good thing?
Is no Parliamentary oversight of this process a good thing?
Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?
Why so difficult to answer directly? Yes/no would actually be fine "First tell me how voter engagement is being reduced?When an election is called everyone has the opportunity to register to vote yes or no?/.If you boundary has been redrawn does that stop you from registering to voter yes or no? Do you think that local councils should beable to access your data from various government sources yes or no?.The data protection tin foil hats would be having a field day ffs.So please explain how this is going to affect anyone who wants to vote in the next council or general election as it seems to me you are convinced that 9 million people will not be eligible to vote which i would say in the uk is illegal and would cause a law suit and a void election. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"young viters will be affected lol good one is this the same young voters that were gona sweep jezza into downing st? the same young viters who didnt bother voting in the referendum? they dont seem to bother wen like u claim its easier to get registerd than it will be in future. Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing? Is reduced voter engagement a good thing? We can go from there
redrawing boundaries wat you meen like the last labour gov did to skew it in there favour they all do it.really think u should of started a new thread .u didnt like the answers you got so changed the question.like i told u before if peeps are to stupid to make sure there registerd thats there lookour.after all u need to be an adult to vote.if u get to 18 and still need ya hand holding well all hope is lost for ya "Actually, it's not a matter of liking the answers or not. It's about them only covering part of the article. You don't vote so aren't interested anyway, right? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Once again way off the topic, either deliberately or out of ignorance. Someone even claimed to have read the article
Major changes being introduced during a pandemic.
"between 8.3 and 9.4 million people are missing from the rolls, or wrongly registered, mainly the young, renters, in urban areas – those least likely to back Boris Johnson’s party.
They will now be excluded when the boundaries of parliamentary constituencies are redrawn for the next general election, potentially skewing the crucial process.
Does anyone think that this is a good thing?
"The parliamentary boundaries bill, currently before the Commons, will no longer slash the number of seats from 650 to 600 – after Tory backbench opposition – but will make big changes to the shape of seats.
Previously, the Boundary Commissions’ proposals would have been scrutinised and voted on by MPs, but they will now become law automatically – under a separate, also controversial switch."
No scrutiny. Is that a good thing?
Is anything that reduces voter engagement or turnout a good thing? Apparently for some it is. I don't know why though. Perhaps you could explain?
Makes a post about voting reminders being stopped and then complains people are going off topic when they reply and comment about it, and then changes the subject whilst ignoring and avoiding the points made on the topic he started...
Oh the irony!
Actually, that was a response to a specific post. Not the point of the thread.
Did you miss that?
Clearly the actual purpose of the thread is of no interest to you.
Understood
One thing, your first post and the point of this thread was about the 9m people being left of the register which in your very next post you made reference to, and stated your problem with them no longer receiving a reminder.
It couldn't be more on topic.
But you want to now shy away from it as it has been shown to be a load of guff..
Understood...
The whole paragraph about major changes without Parliamentary oversight lost on you then?
My next post replied directly to a reply. That is correct isn't it?
Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?
Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?
It was to a reply wanting clarification about what your point was...
Here we go. Find a minor point for a micro-victory
I took the poster to be referring to the second part of my post. That's what I responded to.
I have clarified. You are welcome
Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?
Is reduced voter engagement a good thing? "Yes, you did clarify your point, which you have just confirmed was actually your point. You know, the point you previously declared as not being your point and its discission as being off topic.. You can call it "finding a minor point for a micro-victory", i will call it the culmination of me dealing your spurious accusations and assertions trying to deny your hypocrisy and your diversionary tactics. With regard to your latest (diversionary) questions, is reduced votor engagement a good thing? No, its not. However you are claiming that not sending a reminder to peole that already do not vote is suppressing them. Newsflash - they have already made their descision, and if they have already ignored the many other reminders such as wall to wall media coverage, party political broadcasts, doorsteppers, social media posts etc etc, then a letter is going to make no difference. Also, NOBODY can claim they didnt know an election was happening (for the reasons i have just mentioned). And it is common knowledge that you need to register, the process is thoroughly advertised and explained. As for boundry changes, if you want to claim it as nefarious feel free. However if this is true it could be considered as combatting labours attempt to skew in their favour by doing the same thing. So, either both parties are guilty of the same or it is simply part of standard political process. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"young viters will be affected lol good one is this the same young voters that were gona sweep jezza into downing st? the same young viters who didnt bother voting in the referendum? they dont seem to bother wen like u claim its easier to get registerd than it will be in future. Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing? Is reduced voter engagement a good thing? We can go from there
redrawing boundaries wat you meen like the last labour gov did to skew it in there favour they all do it.really think u should of started a new thread .u didnt like the answers you got so changed the question.like i told u before if peeps are to stupid to make sure there registerd thats there lookour.after all u need to be an adult to vote.if u get to 18 and still need ya hand holding well all hope is lost for ya
Actually, it's not a matter of liking the answers or not. It's about them only covering part of the article.
You don't vote so aren't interested anyway, right? "the op of yours is nothing to do with boundary changes you threw that in when the majority of posters didnt give the answer you wanted but the answer is the answer is the same for the nxt question to.if you wana vote then register if like me you dont then dont register if you are that stupid to not know how to register then u probably shouldnt be voting anyway anyone that stupid will be to easy to manipulate.you know like all those brexit voters | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Once again way off the topic, either deliberately or out of ignorance. Someone even claimed to have read the article
Major changes being introduced during a pandemic.
"between 8.3 and 9.4 million people are missing from the rolls, or wrongly registered, mainly the young, renters, in urban areas – those least likely to back Boris Johnson’s party.
They will now be excluded when the boundaries of parliamentary constituencies are redrawn for the next general election, potentially skewing the crucial process.
Does anyone think that this is a good thing?
"The parliamentary boundaries bill, currently before the Commons, will no longer slash the number of seats from 650 to 600 – after Tory backbench opposition – but will make big changes to the shape of seats.
Previously, the Boundary Commissions’ proposals would have been scrutinised and voted on by MPs, but they will now become law automatically – under a separate, also controversial switch."
No scrutiny. Is that a good thing?
Is anything that reduces voter engagement or turnout a good thing? Apparently for some it is. I don't know why though. Perhaps you could explain?
Makes a post about voting reminders being stopped and then complains people are going off topic when they reply and comment about it, and then changes the subject whilst ignoring and avoiding the points made on the topic he started...
Oh the irony!
Actually, that was a response to a specific post. Not the point of the thread.
Did you miss that?
Clearly the actual purpose of the thread is of no interest to you.
Understood
One thing, your first post and the point of this thread was about the 9m people being left of the register which in your very next post you made reference to, and stated your problem with them no longer receiving a reminder.
It couldn't be more on topic.
But you want to now shy away from it as it has been shown to be a load of guff..
Understood...
The whole paragraph about major changes without Parliamentary oversight lost on you then?
My next post replied directly to a reply. That is correct isn't it?
Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?
Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?
It was to a reply wanting clarification about what your point was...
Here we go. Find a minor point for a micro-victory
I took the poster to be referring to the second part of my post. That's what I responded to.
I have clarified. You are welcome
Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?
Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?
Yes, you did clarify your point, which you have just confirmed was actually your point. You know, the point you previously declared as not being your point and its discission as being off topic..
You can call it "finding a minor point for a micro-victory", i will call it the culmination of me dealing your spurious accusations and assertions trying to deny your hypocrisy and your diversionary tactics.
With regard to your latest (diversionary) questions, is reduced votor engagement a good thing?
No, its not. However you are claiming that not sending a reminder to peole that already do not vote is suppressing them. Newsflash - they have already made their descision, and if they have already ignored the many other reminders such as wall to wall media coverage, party political broadcasts, doorsteppers, social media posts etc etc, then a letter is going to make no difference. Also, NOBODY can claim they didnt know an election was happening (for the reasons i have just mentioned). And it is common knowledge that you need to register, the process is thoroughly advertised and explained.
As for boundry changes, if you want to claim it as nefarious feel free. However if this is true it could be considered as combatting labours attempt to skew in their favour by doing the same thing.
So, either both parties are guilty of the same or it is simply part of standard political process."I'm diverting people from the thread that I posted? Sure. What else would you like to tell me that I'm thinking?
One of the things that I noted was that not sending reminders about voting does have an effect on reducing participation in elections.
If you or anyone else chooses to believe that this is fine then that's fine. However, as those who move most regularly and are therefore most likely to find this reminder useful are those who tend not to vote for the party in power.
Stopping this activity also means these groups will also be under represented when creating the new cinstituency boundaries.
When were boundaries last changed? How did they screw the results to prevent another Conservative victory, two (and a half) times?
Why no reduction in seats as recommended?
Why no oversight?
I'm not particularly a Labour supporter, not was I especially critical of the Conservative party until the last few years.
Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?
Is reduced voter engagement a good thing? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So let's get this right not reminding people to vote means fewer labour voters, and Tories could win by default. But didn't Tories win because labour voters voted for them, only saying. " Let's get it right: Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing? Is reduced voting a good thing?
I mentioned nothing about Tories winning by default. Tories won as much by Labour voters not voting as voting for them. As a matter of fact. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If people cannot be bothered to register to vote the they cannot moan about it. It’s real easy takes less than 5 mins online and the argument about not having access is bollux you can even get to an Internet cafe to do it Free wifi at library,s too there really is no excuse not to register if you want to.Nice try with your usual Boris bashing posts but you really haven't thought this one through.
Determinedly focusing on just one thing.
Not read the article then? Not responding to the direct quotes either?
Not a surprise Yes i read it and have replied but i will repeat myself,there is nothing stopping people registering to vote.If people cant be bothered that is their problem not the governments,now if it was compulsory to vote like in Austria i would agree it would be up to the government to make sure everyone was registered but its not.If some lazy fuckers cant get off their arses (in fact they dont need to you can do it online) thats their problem not the governments.
Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?
Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?
Why so difficult to reply directly to a direct question? Governments are always redrawing bounderies whatever party and reducing mp,s can only be a good thing.Wish they could do it with the house of lords too.Reduced voter engagement is the voters fault its not hard to register.I dont know what data they are using do you? but would guess the last electoral roll which is pretty recent data as we have only recently had an election.
MP numbers are not being reduced.
Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data a good thing?
Is no Parliamentary oversight of this process a good thing?
Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?
Why so difficult to answer directly? Yes/no would actually be fine First tell me how voter engagement is being reduced?When an election is called everyone has the opportunity to register to vote yes or no?/.If you boundary has been redrawn does that stop you from registering to voter yes or no? Do you think that local councils should beable to access your data from various government sources yes or no?.The data protection tin foil hats would be having a field day ffs.So please explain how this is going to affect anyone who wants to vote in the next council or general election as it seems to me you are convinced that 9 million people will not be eligible to vote which i would say in the uk is illegal and would cause a law suit and a void election. "What is the purpose of redrawing boundaries? If you do not have the correct information for who is in a constituency now, how do you redraw it? The mailing to every residence is absolutely the most accurate method of measuring voter numbers, not inferring from other data. I wrote nothing about not being eligible to vote. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"young viters will be affected lol good one is this the same young voters that were gona sweep jezza into downing st? the same young viters who didnt bother voting in the referendum? they dont seem to bother wen like u claim its easier to get registerd than it will be in future. Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing? Is reduced voter engagement a good thing? We can go from there
redrawing boundaries wat you meen like the last labour gov did to skew it in there favour they all do it.really think u should of started a new thread .u didnt like the answers you got so changed the question.like i told u before if peeps are to stupid to make sure there registerd thats there lookour.after all u need to be an adult to vote.if u get to 18 and still need ya hand holding well all hope is lost for ya
Actually, it's not a matter of liking the answers or not. It's about them only covering part of the article.
You don't vote so aren't interested anyway, right? the op of yours is nothing to do with boundary changes you threw that in when the majority of posters didnt give the answer you wanted but the answer is the answer is the same for the nxt question to.if you wana vote then register if like me you dont then dont register if you are that stupid to not know how to register then u probably shouldnt be voting anyway anyone that stupid will be to easy to manipulate.you know like all those brexit voters"Sure. You're right. Of course you are | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If people cannot be bothered to register to vote the they cannot moan about it. It’s real easy takes less than 5 mins online and the argument about not having access is bollux you can even get to an Internet cafe to do it Free wifi at library,s too there really is no excuse not to register if you want to.Nice try with your usual Boris bashing posts but you really haven't thought this one through.
Determinedly focusing on just one thing.
Not read the article then? Not responding to the direct quotes either?
Not a surprise Yes i read it and have replied but i will repeat myself,there is nothing stopping people registering to vote.If people cant be bothered that is their problem not the governments,now if it was compulsory to vote like in Austria i would agree it would be up to the government to make sure everyone was registered but its not.If some lazy fuckers cant get off their arses (in fact they dont need to you can do it online) thats their problem not the governments.
Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?
Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?
Why so difficult to reply directly to a direct question? Governments are always redrawing bounderies whatever party and reducing mp,s can only be a good thing.Wish they could do it with the house of lords too.Reduced voter engagement is the voters fault its not hard to register.I dont know what data they are using do you? but would guess the last electoral roll which is pretty recent data as we have only recently had an election.
MP numbers are not being reduced.
Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data a good thing?
Is no Parliamentary oversight of this process a good thing?
Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?
Why so difficult to answer directly? Yes/no would actually be fine First tell me how voter engagement is being reduced?When an election is called everyone has the opportunity to register to vote yes or no?/.If you boundary has been redrawn does that stop you from registering to voter yes or no? Do you think that local councils should beable to access your data from various government sources yes or no?.The data protection tin foil hats would be having a field day ffs.So please explain how this is going to affect anyone who wants to vote in the next council or general election as it seems to me you are convinced that 9 million people will not be eligible to vote which i would say in the uk is illegal and would cause a law suit and a void election.
What is the purpose of redrawing boundaries?
If you do not have the correct information for who is in a constituency now, how do you redraw it?
The mailing to every residence is absolutely the most accurate method of measuring voter numbers, not inferring from other data.
I wrote nothing about not being eligible to vote."Surely there are rules on size of each constituency which limits possible boundary changes. Is it not a commission that works on such things? Who stops people registering to vote? If they want to vote its perfectly accessible for all and more than well publicized | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Once again way off the topic, either deliberately or out of ignorance. Someone even claimed to have read the article
Major changes being introduced during a pandemic.
"between 8.3 and 9.4 million people are missing from the rolls, or wrongly registered, mainly the young, renters, in urban areas – those least likely to back Boris Johnson’s party.
They will now be excluded when the boundaries of parliamentary constituencies are redrawn for the next general election, potentially skewing the crucial process.
Does anyone think that this is a good thing?
"The parliamentary boundaries bill, currently before the Commons, will no longer slash the number of seats from 650 to 600 – after Tory backbench opposition – but will make big changes to the shape of seats.
Previously, the Boundary Commissions’ proposals would have been scrutinised and voted on by MPs, but they will now become law automatically – under a separate, also controversial switch."
No scrutiny. Is that a good thing?
Is anything that reduces voter engagement or turnout a good thing? Apparently for some it is. I don't know why though. Perhaps you could explain?
Makes a post about voting reminders being stopped and then complains people are going off topic when they reply and comment about it, and then changes the subject whilst ignoring and avoiding the points made on the topic he started...
Oh the irony!
Actually, that was a response to a specific post. Not the point of the thread.
Did you miss that?
Clearly the actual purpose of the thread is of no interest to you.
Understood
One thing, your first post and the point of this thread was about the 9m people being left of the register which in your very next post you made reference to, and stated your problem with them no longer receiving a reminder.
It couldn't be more on topic.
But you want to now shy away from it as it has been shown to be a load of guff..
Understood...
The whole paragraph about major changes without Parliamentary oversight lost on you then?
My next post replied directly to a reply. That is correct isn't it?
Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?
Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?
It was to a reply wanting clarification about what your point was...
Here we go. Find a minor point for a micro-victory
I took the poster to be referring to the second part of my post. That's what I responded to.
I have clarified. You are welcome
Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?
Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?
Yes, you did clarify your point, which you have just confirmed was actually your point. You know, the point you previously declared as not being your point and its discission as being off topic..
You can call it "finding a minor point for a micro-victory", i will call it the culmination of me dealing your spurious accusations and assertions trying to deny your hypocrisy and your diversionary tactics.
With regard to your latest (diversionary) questions, is reduced votor engagement a good thing?
No, its not. However you are claiming that not sending a reminder to peole that already do not vote is suppressing them. Newsflash - they have already made their descision, and if they have already ignored the many other reminders such as wall to wall media coverage, party political broadcasts, doorsteppers, social media posts etc etc, then a letter is going to make no difference. Also, NOBODY can claim they didnt know an election was happening (for the reasons i have just mentioned). And it is common knowledge that you need to register, the process is thoroughly advertised and explained.
As for boundry changes, if you want to claim it as nefarious feel free. However if this is true it could be considered as combatting labours attempt to skew in their favour by doing the same thing.
So, either both parties are guilty of the same or it is simply part of standard political process.
I'm diverting people from the thread that I posted?
Sure. What else would you like to tell me that I'm thinking?
One of the things that I noted was that not sending reminders about voting does have an effect on reducing participation in elections.
If you or anyone else chooses to believe that this is fine then that's fine. However, as those who move most regularly and are therefore most likely to find this reminder useful are those who tend not to vote for the party in power.
Stopping this activity also means these groups will also be under represented when creating the new cinstituency boundaries.
When were boundaries last changed? How did they screw the results to prevent another Conservative victory, two (and a half) times?
Why no reduction in seats as recommended?
Why no oversight?
I'm not particularly a Labour supporter, not was I especially critical of the Conservative party until the last few years.
Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?
Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?"Yes, you are diverting away from your own topic. Im not guessing what you are thinking, the topic of this thread is there for every one to see for themselves, i have given plenty of irrefutable evidence for my statement and on top of that, you confirmed it yourself as i pointed out in my last post. As for the rest of your post, I have answered the two questions you are parroting to everyone, with regards to the rest i will just say that claiming that people that move house are not tory voters is laughable and also refer you back to the points i made (and you repeatedly ignored) about the letter being insignificant when there are so many other reminders to vote. Not voting is a choice, not a mistake. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If people cannot be bothered to register to vote the they cannot moan about it. It’s real easy takes less than 5 mins online and the argument about not having access is bollux you can even get to an Internet cafe to do it Free wifi at library,s too there really is no excuse not to register if you want to.Nice try with your usual Boris bashing posts but you really haven't thought this one through.
Determinedly focusing on just one thing.
Not read the article then? Not responding to the direct quotes either?
Not a surprise Yes i read it and have replied but i will repeat myself,there is nothing stopping people registering to vote.If people cant be bothered that is their problem not the governments,now if it was compulsory to vote like in Austria i would agree it would be up to the government to make sure everyone was registered but its not.If some lazy fuckers cant get off their arses (in fact they dont need to you can do it online) thats their problem not the governments.
Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?
Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?
Why so difficult to reply directly to a direct question? Governments are always redrawing bounderies whatever party and reducing mp,s can only be a good thing.Wish they could do it with the house of lords too.Reduced voter engagement is the voters fault its not hard to register.I dont know what data they are using do you? but would guess the last electoral roll which is pretty recent data as we have only recently had an election.
MP numbers are not being reduced.
Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data a good thing?
Is no Parliamentary oversight of this process a good thing?
Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?
Why so difficult to answer directly? Yes/no would actually be fine First tell me how voter engagement is being reduced?When an election is called everyone has the opportunity to register to vote yes or no?/.If you boundary has been redrawn does that stop you from registering to voter yes or no? Do you think that local councils should beable to access your data from various government sources yes or no?.The data protection tin foil hats would be having a field day ffs.So please explain how this is going to affect anyone who wants to vote in the next council or general election as it seems to me you are convinced that 9 million people will not be eligible to vote which i would say in the uk is illegal and would cause a law suit and a void election.
What is the purpose of redrawing boundaries?
If you do not have the correct information for who is in a constituency now, how do you redraw it?
The mailing to every residence is absolutely the most accurate method of measuring voter numbers, not inferring from other data.
I wrote nothing about not being eligible to vote.
Surely there are rules on size of each constituency which limits possible boundary changes. Is it not a commission that works on such things? Who stops people registering to vote? If they want to vote its perfectly accessible for all and more than well publicized"The Boundary Comission works to the terms that it is given and uses the data that it had available. If it has less accurate data available it can less accurately draw boundaries. Does that make logical sense? I said nothing about people being prevented from voting. I think that any process that makes it more likely that someone to vote is preferable for one that does not. What do you think? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If people cannot be bothered to register to vote the they cannot moan about it. It’s real easy takes less than 5 mins online and the argument about not having access is bollux you can even get to an Internet cafe to do it Free wifi at library,s too there really is no excuse not to register if you want to.Nice try with your usual Boris bashing posts but you really haven't thought this one through.
Determinedly focusing on just one thing.
Not read the article then? Not responding to the direct quotes either?
Not a surprise Yes i read it and have replied but i will repeat myself,there is nothing stopping people registering to vote.If people cant be bothered that is their problem not the governments,now if it was compulsory to vote like in Austria i would agree it would be up to the government to make sure everyone was registered but its not.If some lazy fuckers cant get off their arses (in fact they dont need to you can do it online) thats their problem not the governments.
Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?
Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?
Why so difficult to reply directly to a direct question? Governments are always redrawing bounderies whatever party and reducing mp,s can only be a good thing.Wish they could do it with the house of lords too.Reduced voter engagement is the voters fault its not hard to register.I dont know what data they are using do you? but would guess the last electoral roll which is pretty recent data as we have only recently had an election.
MP numbers are not being reduced.
Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data a good thing?
Is no Parliamentary oversight of this process a good thing?
Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?
Why so difficult to answer directly? Yes/no would actually be fine First tell me how voter engagement is being reduced?When an election is called everyone has the opportunity to register to vote yes or no?/.If you boundary has been redrawn does that stop you from registering to voter yes or no? Do you think that local councils should beable to access your data from various government sources yes or no?.The data protection tin foil hats would be having a field day ffs.So please explain how this is going to affect anyone who wants to vote in the next council or general election as it seems to me you are convinced that 9 million people will not be eligible to vote which i would say in the uk is illegal and would cause a law suit and a void election.
What is the purpose of redrawing boundaries?
If you do not have the correct information for who is in a constituency now, how do you redraw it?
The mailing to every residence is absolutely the most accurate method of measuring voter numbers, not inferring from other data.
I wrote nothing about not being eligible to vote.
Surely there are rules on size of each constituency which limits possible boundary changes. Is it not a commission that works on such things? Who stops people registering to vote? If they want to vote its perfectly accessible for all and more than well publicized
The Boundary Comission works to the terms that it is given and uses the data that it had available.
If it has less accurate data available it can less accurately draw boundaries.
Does that make logical sense?
I said nothing about people being prevented from voting.
I think that any process that makes it more likely that someone to vote is preferable for one that does not.
What do you think?"So they work within set parameters? What data is inaccurate before they decide on boundaries? Whatever constituency you happen to fall in it does not stop you registering. Even if yours changes you just register in your new one. If in doubt check. Why does it affect Labour differently to other parties | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No, its not. However you are claiming that not sending a reminder to peole that already do not vote is suppressing them. Newsflash - they have already made their descision, and if they have already ignored the many other reminders such as wall to wall media coverage, party political broadcasts, doorsteppers, social media posts etc etc, then a letter is going to make no difference. Also, NOBODY can claim they didnt know an election was happening (for the reasons i have just mentioned). And it is common knowledge that you need to register, the process is thoroughly advertised and explained. As for boundry changes, if you want to claim it as nefarious feel free. However if this is true it could be considered as combatting labours attempt to skew in their favour by doing the same thing. So, either both parties are guilty of the same or it is simply part of standard political process. I'm diverting people from the thread that I posted? Sure. What else would you like to tell me that I'm thinking?
One of the things that I noted was that not sending reminders about voting does have an effect on reducing participation in elections.
If you or anyone else chooses to believe that this is fine then that's fine. However, as those who move most regularly and are therefore most likely to find this reminder useful are those who tend not to vote for the party in power.
Stopping this activity also means these groups will also be under represented when creating the new cinstituency boundaries.
When were boundaries last changed? How did they screw the results to prevent another Conservative victory, two (and a half) times?
Why no reduction in seats as recommended?
Why no oversight?
I'm not particularly a Labour supporter, not was I especially critical of the Conservative party until the last few years.
Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?
Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?
Yes, you are diverting away from your own topic. Im not guessing what you are thinking, the topic of this thread is there for every one to see for themselves, i have given plenty of irrefutable evidence for my statement and on top of that, you confirmed it yourself as i pointed out in my last post.
As for the rest of your post, I have answered the two questions you are parroting to everyone, with regards to the rest i will just say that claiming that people that move house are not tory voters is laughable and also refer you back to the points i made (and you repeatedly ignored) about the letter being insignificant when there are so many other reminders to vote.
Not voting is a choice, not a mistake."You are telling me what my thoughts are again? Thanks
You haven't given any "irrefutable evidence". You have just made assertions.
Provide some actual evidence. A reference. Some data. Anything that actually qualifies as evidence. Your opinion is just your opinion.
Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?
"As for boundry changes, if you want to claim it as nefarious feel free. However if this is true it could be considered as combatting labours attempt to skew in their favour by doing the same thing."
So is that yes it's a good idea or no it isn't? You also don't seem to know when the last boundary change was or how that has prevented any other party from being elected to power.
Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?
"NOBODY can claim they didnt know an election was happening"
I think that any process that makes it more likely that someone to vote is preferable for one that does not.
What do you think? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If people cannot be bothered to register to vote the they cannot moan about it. It’s real easy takes less than 5 mins online and the argument about not having access is bollux you can even get to an Internet cafe to do it Free wifi at library,s too there really is no excuse not to register if you want to.Nice try with your usual Boris bashing posts but you really haven't thought this one through.
Determinedly focusing on just one thing.
Not read the article then? Not responding to the direct quotes either?
Not a surprise Yes i read it and have replied but i will repeat myself,there is nothing stopping people registering to vote.If people cant be bothered that is their problem not the governments,now if it was compulsory to vote like in Austria i would agree it would be up to the government to make sure everyone was registered but its not.If some lazy fuckers cant get off their arses (in fact they dont need to you can do it online) thats their problem not the governments.
Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?
Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?
Why so difficult to reply directly to a direct question? Governments are always redrawing bounderies whatever party and reducing mp,s can only be a good thing.Wish they could do it with the house of lords too.Reduced voter engagement is the voters fault its not hard to register.I dont know what data they are using do you? but would guess the last electoral roll which is pretty recent data as we have only recently had an election.
MP numbers are not being reduced.
Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data a good thing?
Is no Parliamentary oversight of this process a good thing?
Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?
Why so difficult to answer directly? Yes/no would actually be fine First tell me how voter engagement is being reduced?When an election is called everyone has the opportunity to register to vote yes or no?/.If you boundary has been redrawn does that stop you from registering to voter yes or no? Do you think that local councils should beable to access your data from various government sources yes or no?.The data protection tin foil hats would be having a field day ffs.So please explain how this is going to affect anyone who wants to vote in the next council or general election as it seems to me you are convinced that 9 million people will not be eligible to vote which i would say in the uk is illegal and would cause a law suit and a void election.
What is the purpose of redrawing boundaries?
If you do not have the correct information for who is in a constituency now, how do you redraw it?
The mailing to every residence is absolutely the most accurate method of measuring voter numbers, not inferring from other data.
I wrote nothing about not being eligible to vote.
Surely there are rules on size of each constituency which limits possible boundary changes. Is it not a commission that works on such things? Who stops people registering to vote? If they want to vote its perfectly accessible for all and more than well publicized
The Boundary Comission works to the terms that it is given and uses the data that it had available.
If it has less accurate data available it can less accurately draw boundaries.
Does that make logical sense?
I said nothing about people being prevented from voting.
I think that any process that makes it more likely that someone to vote is preferable for one that does not.
What do you think?
So they work within set parameters?
What data is inaccurate before they decide on boundaries?
Whatever constituency you happen to fall in it does not stop you registering. Even if yours changes you just register in your new one. If in doubt check.
Why does it affect Labour differently to other parties"Does it make logical sense that the most accurate voter data now will provide the best information for redrawing boundaries? That's a completely neutral question. You must be able to answer that directly. If you are not recording 9 million voters then you cannot draw boundaries correctly right? I said nothing anywhere about being prevented from voting. Once again, I think that any process that makes it more likely that someone to vote is preferable for one that does not. What do you think? I didn't mention Labour. I said that reduction in the votes of the young or the poor tended to favour the Tory party. Do you disagree? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Once again way off the topic, either deliberately or out of ignorance. Someone even claimed to have read the article
Major changes being introduced during a pandemic.
"between 8.3 and 9.4 million people are missing from the rolls, or wrongly registered, mainly the young, renters, in urban areas – those least likely to back Boris Johnson’s party.
They will now be excluded when the boundaries of parliamentary constituencies are redrawn for the next general election, potentially skewing the crucial process.
Does anyone think that this is a good thing?
"The parliamentary boundaries bill, currently before the Commons, will no longer slash the number of seats from 650 to 600 – after Tory backbench opposition – but will make big changes to the shape of seats.
Previously, the Boundary Commissions’ proposals would have been scrutinised and voted on by MPs, but they will now become law automatically – under a separate, also controversial switch."
No scrutiny. Is that a good thing?
Is anything that reduces voter engagement or turnout a good thing? Apparently for some it is. I don't know why though. Perhaps you could explain?
People missing of the register is not good. Why are they missing from the register? Is it all about the boundary changes and as you say no automatic reminders. I assume your point is the boundary has changed but there residence remained in the same place. Without a reminder how would they know? Please let me know if I misinterpreted"People are missing from the register because they move. Direct mailing corrects that. Not sending this will reduce registration. You could also send a link to voter registration when people transfer their phone number or utilities. It is not being proposed as a substitute. What I'm actually discussing is that over time populations move and constituencies no longer contain similar numbers of people. Boundaries are then redrawn, bit if you've removed the most accurate method of knowing who is eligible to vote in a constituency you know longer have accurate information for redrawing those boundaries. There is also a side effect, deliberate or not, of those most likely to mid registering as being poor or young as they move most frequently. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If people cannot be bothered to register to vote the they cannot moan about it. It’s real easy takes less than 5 mins online and the argument about not having access is bollux you can even get to an Internet cafe to do it Free wifi at library,s too there really is no excuse not to register if you want to.Nice try with your usual Boris bashing posts but you really haven't thought this one through.
Determinedly focusing on just one thing.
Not read the article then? Not responding to the direct quotes either?
Not a surprise Yes i read it and have replied but i will repeat myself,there is nothing stopping people registering to vote.If people cant be bothered that is their problem not the governments,now if it was compulsory to vote like in Austria i would agree it would be up to the government to make sure everyone was registered but its not.If some lazy fuckers cant get off their arses (in fact they dont need to you can do it online) thats their problem not the governments.
Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?
Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?
Why so difficult to reply directly to a direct question? Governments are always redrawing bounderies whatever party and reducing mp,s can only be a good thing.Wish they could do it with the house of lords too.Reduced voter engagement is the voters fault its not hard to register.I dont know what data they are using do you? but would guess the last electoral roll which is pretty recent data as we have only recently had an election.
MP numbers are not being reduced.
Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data a good thing?
Is no Parliamentary oversight of this process a good thing?
Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?
Why so difficult to answer directly? Yes/no would actually be fine First tell me how voter engagement is being reduced?When an election is called everyone has the opportunity to register to vote yes or no?/.If you boundary has been redrawn does that stop you from registering to voter yes or no? Do you think that local councils should beable to access your data from various government sources yes or no?.The data protection tin foil hats would be having a field day ffs.So please explain how this is going to affect anyone who wants to vote in the next council or general election as it seems to me you are convinced that 9 million people will not be eligible to vote which i would say in the uk is illegal and would cause a law suit and a void election.
What is the purpose of redrawing boundaries?
If you do not have the correct information for who is in a constituency now, how do you redraw it?
The mailing to every residence is absolutely the most accurate method of measuring voter numbers, not inferring from other data.
I wrote nothing about not being eligible to vote.
Surely there are rules on size of each constituency which limits possible boundary changes. Is it not a commission that works on such things? Who stops people registering to vote? If they want to vote its perfectly accessible for all and more than well publicized
The Boundary Comission works to the terms that it is given and uses the data that it had available.
If it has less accurate data available it can less accurately draw boundaries.
Does that make logical sense?
I said nothing about people being prevented from voting.
I think that any process that makes it more likely that someone to vote is preferable for one that does not.
What do you think?
So they work within set parameters?
What data is inaccurate before they decide on boundaries?
Whatever constituency you happen to fall in it does not stop you registering. Even if yours changes you just register in your new one. If in doubt check.
Why does it affect Labour differently to other parties
Does it make logical sense that the most accurate voter data now will provide the best information for redrawing boundaries?
That's a completely neutral question. You must be able to answer that directly.
If you are not recording 9 million voters then you cannot draw boundaries correctly right?
I said nothing anywhere about being prevented from voting.
Once again, I think that any process that makes it more likely that someone to vote is preferable for one that does not.
What do you think?
I didn't mention Labour. I said that reduction in the votes of the young or the poor tended to favour the Tory party.
Do you disagree?"I did not say accurate data is not good. I asked what data is inaccurate BEFORE the boundary changes. So are you saying 9 million are not recorded before the boundary changes or will be after?. It's the individuals responsibility to make sure they are registered. If they do that then there is no problem. If they don't do it then it's down to them. Why do you say the poor and young will be affected more? Yes I disagree with you as I believe people have to take responsibility of their actions or in actions | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No, its not. However you are claiming that not sending a reminder to peole that already do not vote is suppressing them. Newsflash - they have already made their descision, and if they have already ignored the many other reminders such as wall to wall media coverage, party political broadcasts, doorsteppers, social media posts etc etc, then a letter is going to make no difference. Also, NOBODY can claim they didnt know an election was happening (for the reasons i have just mentioned). And it is common knowledge that you need to register, the process is thoroughly advertised and explained. As for boundry changes, if you want to claim it as nefarious feel free. However if this is true it could be considered as combatting labours attempt to skew in their favour by doing the same thing. So, either both parties are guilty of the same or it is simply part of standard political process. I'm diverting people from the thread that I posted? Sure. What else would you like to tell me that I'm thinking?
One of the things that I noted was that not sending reminders about voting does have an effect on reducing participation in elections.
If you or anyone else chooses to believe that this is fine then that's fine. However, as those who move most regularly and are therefore most likely to find this reminder useful are those who tend not to vote for the party in power.
Stopping this activity also means these groups will also be under represented when creating the new cinstituency boundaries.
When were boundaries last changed? How did they screw the results to prevent another Conservative victory, two (and a half) times?
Why no reduction in seats as recommended?
Why no oversight?
I'm not particularly a Labour supporter, not was I especially critical of the Conservative party until the last few years.
Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?
Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?
Yes, you are diverting away from your own topic. Im not guessing what you are thinking, the topic of this thread is there for every one to see for themselves, i have given plenty of irrefutable evidence for my statement and on top of that, you confirmed it yourself as i pointed out in my last post.
As for the rest of your post, I have answered the two questions you are parroting to everyone, with regards to the rest i will just say that claiming that people that move house are not tory voters is laughable and also refer you back to the points i made (and you repeatedly ignored) about the letter being insignificant when there are so many other reminders to vote.
Not voting is a choice, not a mistake.
You are telling me what my thoughts are again?
Thanks
You haven't given any "irrefutable evidence". You have just made assertions.
Provide some actual evidence. A reference. Some data. Anything that actually qualifies as evidence. Your opinion is just your opinion.
Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?
"As for boundry changes, if you want to claim it as nefarious feel free. However if this is true it could be considered as combatting labours attempt to skew in their favour by doing the same thing."
So is that yes it's a good idea or no it isn't? You also don't seem to know when the last boundary change was or how that has prevented any other party from being elected to power.
Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?
"NOBODY can claim they didnt know an election was happening"
I think that any process that makes it more likely that someone to vote is preferable for one that does not.
What do you think?"How am i telling you your thoughts? I have simply proven, using your own words and posts, that you where lying when you claimed the post was not about postal reminders. This is irrefutable. If you want to claim that this is not what you meant then your words betray you, as does your initial engagement on the subject. Your latest post is nothing more than garbaled piffle. Trying to imply that i answered your question about voter engagement with the line you quoted is a demonstrable lie. I answered it directly and the post is again, there for all to see. The line you quoted was completely unrelated and you trying to misapropriate it is indicative of your underhanded debating technique. It, is not my opinion that its not only labour voters that move house, it is an obvious fact with no proof needed. It is not my opinion that the postal reminder is not the only (or main) reminder to register to vote. It is an obvious fact, no proof is needed, everyone had seen the party political broadcasts, incessant media coverage, leaflets, and social media circus etc at election time. The proof of my claim you are avoiding points is the glaring absence of your response to them. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No, its not. However you are claiming that not sending a reminder to peole that already do not vote is suppressing them. Newsflash - they have already made their descision, and if they have already ignored the many other reminders such as wall to wall media coverage, party political broadcasts, doorsteppers, social media posts etc etc, then a letter is going to make no difference. Also, NOBODY can claim they didnt know an election was happening (for the reasons i have just mentioned). And it is common knowledge that you need to register, the process is thoroughly advertised and explained. As for boundry changes, if you want to claim it as nefarious feel free. However if this is true it could be considered as combatting labours attempt to skew in their favour by doing the same thing. So, either both parties are guilty of the same or it is simply part of standard political process. I'm diverting people from the thread that I posted? Sure. What else would you like to tell me that I'm thinking?
One of the things that I noted was that not sending reminders about voting does have an effect on reducing participation in elections.
If you or anyone else chooses to believe that this is fine then that's fine. However, as those who move most regularly and are therefore most likely to find this reminder useful are those who tend not to vote for the party in power.
Stopping this activity also means these groups will also be under represented when creating the new cinstituency boundaries.
When were boundaries last changed? How did they screw the results to prevent another Conservative victory, two (and a half) times?
Why no reduction in seats as recommended?
Why no oversight?
I'm not particularly a Labour supporter, not was I especially critical of the Conservative party until the last few years.
Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?
Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?
Yes, you are diverting away from your own topic. Im not guessing what you are thinking, the topic of this thread is there for every one to see for themselves, i have given plenty of irrefutable evidence for my statement and on top of that, you confirmed it yourself as i pointed out in my last post.
As for the rest of your post, I have answered the two questions you are parroting to everyone, with regards to the rest i will just say that claiming that people that move house are not tory voters is laughable and also refer you back to the points i made (and you repeatedly ignored) about the letter being insignificant when there are so many other reminders to vote.
Not voting is a choice, not a mistake.
You are telling me what my thoughts are again?
Thanks
You haven't given any "irrefutable evidence". You have just made assertions.
Provide some actual evidence. A reference. Some data. Anything that actually qualifies as evidence. Your opinion is just your opinion.
Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?
"As for boundry changes, if you want to claim it as nefarious feel free. However if this is true it could be considered as combatting labours attempt to skew in their favour by doing the same thing."
So is that yes it's a good idea or no it isn't? You also don't seem to know when the last boundary change was or how that has prevented any other party from being elected to power.
Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?
"NOBODY can claim they didnt know an election was happening"
I think that any process that makes it more likely that someone to vote is preferable for one that does not.
What do you think?
How am i telling you your thoughts?
I have simply proven, using your own words and posts, that you where lying when you claimed the post was not about postal reminders. This is irrefutable. If you want to claim that this is not what you meant then your words betray you, as does your initial engagement on the subject.
Your latest post is nothing more than garbaled piffle.
Trying to imply that i answered your question about voter engagement with the line you quoted is a demonstrable lie. I answered it directly and the post is again, there for all to see. The line you quoted was completely unrelated and you trying to misapropriate it is indicative of your underhanded debating technique.
It, is not my opinion that its not only labour voters that move house, it is an obvious fact with no proof needed.
It is not my opinion that the postal reminder is not the only (or main) reminder to register to vote. It is an obvious fact, no proof is needed, everyone had seen the party political broadcasts, incessant media coverage, leaflets, and social media circus etc at election time.
The proof of my claim you are avoiding points is the glaring absence of your response to them.
"Your repeated opinion is neither proof not evidence. Discussing one aspect of a thread in a few posts is neither distraction nor lies. You are persistent though
I didn't write that "only" Labour supporters move house. I never even mentioned the party except in response to others.
I did not say that voter registration documents were the "only" way of reminding people to register to vote.
You can continue to have a parallel "argument" about whatever you like and claim that you have "won" whatever you wish as you are making up your own thread.
Why don't you start your own, then you can tell everyone what they really meant when they write something | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If people cannot be bothered to register to vote the they cannot moan about it. It’s real easy takes less than 5 mins online and the argument about not having access is bollux you can even get to an Internet cafe to do it Free wifi at library,s too there really is no excuse not to register if you want to.Nice try with your usual Boris bashing posts but you really haven't thought this one through.
Determinedly focusing on just one thing.
Not read the article then? Not responding to the direct quotes either?
Not a surprise Yes i read it and have replied but i will repeat myself,there is nothing stopping people registering to vote.If people cant be bothered that is their problem not the governments,now if it was compulsory to vote like in Austria i would agree it would be up to the government to make sure everyone was registered but its not.If some lazy fuckers cant get off their arses (in fact they dont need to you can do it online) thats their problem not the governments.
Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?
Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?
Why so difficult to reply directly to a direct question? Governments are always redrawing bounderies whatever party and reducing mp,s can only be a good thing.Wish they could do it with the house of lords too.Reduced voter engagement is the voters fault its not hard to register.I dont know what data they are using do you? but would guess the last electoral roll which is pretty recent data as we have only recently had an election.
MP numbers are not being reduced.
Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data a good thing?
Is no Parliamentary oversight of this process a good thing?
Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?
Why so difficult to answer directly? Yes/no would actually be fine First tell me how voter engagement is being reduced?When an election is called everyone has the opportunity to register to vote yes or no?/.If you boundary has been redrawn does that stop you from registering to voter yes or no? Do you think that local councils should beable to access your data from various government sources yes or no?.The data protection tin foil hats would be having a field day ffs.So please explain how this is going to affect anyone who wants to vote in the next council or general election as it seems to me you are convinced that 9 million people will not be eligible to vote which i would say in the uk is illegal and would cause a law suit and a void election.
What is the purpose of redrawing boundaries?
If you do not have the correct information for who is in a constituency now, how do you redraw it?
The mailing to every residence is absolutely the most accurate method of measuring voter numbers, not inferring from other data.
I wrote nothing about not being eligible to vote.
Surely there are rules on size of each constituency which limits possible boundary changes. Is it not a commission that works on such things? Who stops people registering to vote? If they want to vote its perfectly accessible for all and more than well publicized
The Boundary Comission works to the terms that it is given and uses the data that it had available.
If it has less accurate data available it can less accurately draw boundaries.
Does that make logical sense?
I said nothing about people being prevented from voting.
I think that any process that makes it more likely that someone to vote is preferable for one that does not.
What do you think?
So they work within set parameters?
What data is inaccurate before they decide on boundaries?
Whatever constituency you happen to fall in it does not stop you registering. Even if yours changes you just register in your new one. If in doubt check.
Why does it affect Labour differently to other parties
Does it make logical sense that the most accurate voter data now will provide the best information for redrawing boundaries?
That's a completely neutral question. You must be able to answer that directly.
If you are not recording 9 million voters then you cannot draw boundaries correctly right?
I said nothing anywhere about being prevented from voting.
Once again, I think that any process that makes it more likely that someone to vote is preferable for one that does not.
What do you think?
I didn't mention Labour. I said that reduction in the votes of the young or the poor tended to favour the Tory party.
Do you disagree?
I did not say accurate data is not good. I asked what data is inaccurate BEFORE the boundary changes. So are you saying 9 million are not recorded before the boundary changes or will be after?. It's the individuals responsibility to make sure they are registered. If they do that then there is no problem. If they don't do it then it's down to them. Why do you say the poor and young will be affected more? Yes I disagree with you as I believe people have to take responsibility of their actions or in actions"There is a separate discussion about people's responsibility to register to vote if they wish and even distribution of population within a constituency. You and I disagree over it being an inherent good that more people should vote. Fine. Yes, several million people could be missing from voter registration. That is, undoubtedly, a maximum. That is because the paper system catches a lot of people who may otherwise not get around to registration because it is not an immediate priority and can easily be put off and forgotten. If you don't believe that, then again how you view normal behaviour and priorities, particularly of younger people, is very different to my own. The paper system currently maximises the accuracy of electoral data. Without replacing or supplementing this process then the data will be less accurate. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No, its not. However you are claiming that not sending a reminder to peole that already do not vote is suppressing them. Newsflash - they have already made their descision, and if they have already ignored the many other reminders such as wall to wall media coverage, party political broadcasts, doorsteppers, social media posts etc etc, then a letter is going to make no difference. Also, NOBODY can claim they didnt know an election was happening (for the reasons i have just mentioned). And it is common knowledge that you need to register, the process is thoroughly advertised and explained. As for boundry changes, if you want to claim it as nefarious feel free. However if this is true it could be considered as combatting labours attempt to skew in their favour by doing the same thing. So, either both parties are guilty of the same or it is simply part of standard political process. I'm diverting people from the thread that I posted? Sure. What else would you like to tell me that I'm thinking?
One of the things that I noted was that not sending reminders about voting does have an effect on reducing participation in elections.
If you or anyone else chooses to believe that this is fine then that's fine. However, as those who move most regularly and are therefore most likely to find this reminder useful are those who tend not to vote for the party in power.
Stopping this activity also means these groups will also be under represented when creating the new cinstituency boundaries.
When were boundaries last changed? How did they screw the results to prevent another Conservative victory, two (and a half) times?
Why no reduction in seats as recommended?
Why no oversight?
I'm not particularly a Labour supporter, not was I especially critical of the Conservative party until the last few years.
Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?
Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?
Yes, you are diverting away from your own topic. Im not guessing what you are thinking, the topic of this thread is there for every one to see for themselves, i have given plenty of irrefutable evidence for my statement and on top of that, you confirmed it yourself as i pointed out in my last post.
As for the rest of your post, I have answered the two questions you are parroting to everyone, with regards to the rest i will just say that claiming that people that move house are not tory voters is laughable and also refer you back to the points i made (and you repeatedly ignored) about the letter being insignificant when there are so many other reminders to vote.
Not voting is a choice, not a mistake.
You are telling me what my thoughts are again?
Thanks
You haven't given any "irrefutable evidence". You have just made assertions.
Provide some actual evidence. A reference. Some data. Anything that actually qualifies as evidence. Your opinion is just your opinion.
Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?
"As for boundry changes, if you want to claim it as nefarious feel free. However if this is true it could be considered as combatting labours attempt to skew in their favour by doing the same thing."
So is that yes it's a good idea or no it isn't? You also don't seem to know when the last boundary change was or how that has prevented any other party from being elected to power.
Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?
"NOBODY can claim they didnt know an election was happening"
I think that any process that makes it more likely that someone to vote is preferable for one that does not.
What do you think?
How am i telling you your thoughts?
I have simply proven, using your own words and posts, that you where lying when you claimed the post was not about postal reminders. This is irrefutable. If you want to claim that this is not what you meant then your words betray you, as does your initial engagement on the subject.
Your latest post is nothing more than garbaled piffle.
Trying to imply that i answered your question about voter engagement with the line you quoted is a demonstrable lie. I answered it directly and the post is again, there for all to see. The line you quoted was completely unrelated and you trying to misapropriate it is indicative of your underhanded debating technique.
It, is not my opinion that its not only labour voters that move house, it is an obvious fact with no proof needed.
It is not my opinion that the postal reminder is not the only (or main) reminder to register to vote. It is an obvious fact, no proof is needed, everyone had seen the party political broadcasts, incessant media coverage, leaflets, and social media circus etc at election time.
The proof of my claim you are avoiding points is the glaring absence of your response to them.
Your repeated opinion is neither proof not evidence.
Discussing one aspect of a thread in a few posts is neither distraction nor lies.
You are persistent though
I didn't write that "only" Labour supporters move house. I never even mentioned the party except in response to others.
I did not say that voter registration documents were the "only" way of reminding people to register to vote.
You can continue to have a parallel "argument" about whatever you like and claim that you have "won" whatever you wish as you are making up your own thread.
Why don't you start your own, then you can tell everyone what they really meant when they write something "It is not a parallel argument, it is the argument that you started but are trying to distance yourself from. As I have evidenced, and others have noticed and stated. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No, its not. However you are claiming that not sending a reminder to peole that already do not vote is suppressing them. Newsflash - they have already made their descision, and if they have already ignored the many other reminders such as wall to wall media coverage, party political broadcasts, doorsteppers, social media posts etc etc, then a letter is going to make no difference. Also, NOBODY can claim they didnt know an election was happening (for the reasons i have just mentioned). And it is common knowledge that you need to register, the process is thoroughly advertised and explained. As for boundry changes, if you want to claim it as nefarious feel free. However if this is true it could be considered as combatting labours attempt to skew in their favour by doing the same thing. So, either both parties are guilty of the same or it is simply part of standard political process. I'm diverting people from the thread that I posted? Sure. What else would you like to tell me that I'm thinking?
One of the things that I noted was that not sending reminders about voting does have an effect on reducing participation in elections.
If you or anyone else chooses to believe that this is fine then that's fine. However, as those who move most regularly and are therefore most likely to find this reminder useful are those who tend not to vote for the party in power.
Stopping this activity also means these groups will also be under represented when creating the new cinstituency boundaries.
When were boundaries last changed? How did they screw the results to prevent another Conservative victory, two (and a half) times?
Why no reduction in seats as recommended?
Why no oversight?
I'm not particularly a Labour supporter, not was I especially critical of the Conservative party until the last few years.
Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?
Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?
Yes, you are diverting away from your own topic. Im not guessing what you are thinking, the topic of this thread is there for every one to see for themselves, i have given plenty of irrefutable evidence for my statement and on top of that, you confirmed it yourself as i pointed out in my last post.
As for the rest of your post, I have answered the two questions you are parroting to everyone, with regards to the rest i will just say that claiming that people that move house are not tory voters is laughable and also refer you back to the points i made (and you repeatedly ignored) about the letter being insignificant when there are so many other reminders to vote.
Not voting is a choice, not a mistake.
You are telling me what my thoughts are again?
Thanks
You haven't given any "irrefutable evidence". You have just made assertions.
Provide some actual evidence. A reference. Some data. Anything that actually qualifies as evidence. Your opinion is just your opinion.
Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?
"As for boundry changes, if you want to claim it as nefarious feel free. However if this is true it could be considered as combatting labours attempt to skew in their favour by doing the same thing."
So is that yes it's a good idea or no it isn't? You also don't seem to know when the last boundary change was or how that has prevented any other party from being elected to power.
Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?
"NOBODY can claim they didnt know an election was happening"
I think that any process that makes it more likely that someone to vote is preferable for one that does not.
What do you think?
How am i telling you your thoughts?
I have simply proven, using your own words and posts, that you where lying when you claimed the post was not about postal reminders. This is irrefutable. If you want to claim that this is not what you meant then your words betray you, as does your initial engagement on the subject.
Your latest post is nothing more than garbaled piffle.
Trying to imply that i answered your question about voter engagement with the line you quoted is a demonstrable lie. I answered it directly and the post is again, there for all to see. The line you quoted was completely unrelated and you trying to misapropriate it is indicative of your underhanded debating technique.
It, is not my opinion that its not only labour voters that move house, it is an obvious fact with no proof needed.
It is not my opinion that the postal reminder is not the only (or main) reminder to register to vote. It is an obvious fact, no proof is needed, everyone had seen the party political broadcasts, incessant media coverage, leaflets, and social media circus etc at election time.
The proof of my claim you are avoiding points is the glaring absence of your response to them.
Your repeated opinion is neither proof not evidence.
Discussing one aspect of a thread in a few posts is neither distraction nor lies.
You are persistent though
I didn't write that "only" Labour supporters move house. I never even mentioned the party except in response to others.
I did not say that voter registration documents were the "only" way of reminding people to register to vote.
You can continue to have a parallel "argument" about whatever you like and claim that you have "won" whatever you wish as you are making up your own thread.
Why don't you start your own, then you can tell everyone what they really meant when they write something
It is not a parallel argument, it is the argument that you started but are trying to distance yourself from. As I have evidenced, and others have noticed and stated.
"Opinion does not equal evidence. Your demands and questions answered as directly as possible. Mine not so much
Yawn.
Last word to you as you can't help yourself | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No, its not. However you are claiming that not sending a reminder to peole that already do not vote is suppressing them. Newsflash - they have already made their descision, and if they have already ignored the many other reminders such as wall to wall media coverage, party political broadcasts, doorsteppers, social media posts etc etc, then a letter is going to make no difference. Also, NOBODY can claim they didnt know an election was happening (for the reasons i have just mentioned). And it is common knowledge that you need to register, the process is thoroughly advertised and explained. As for boundry changes, if you want to claim it as nefarious feel free. However if this is true it could be considered as combatting labours attempt to skew in their favour by doing the same thing. So, either both parties are guilty of the same or it is simply part of standard political process. I'm diverting people from the thread that I posted? Sure. What else would you like to tell me that I'm thinking?
One of the things that I noted was that not sending reminders about voting does have an effect on reducing participation in elections.
If you or anyone else chooses to believe that this is fine then that's fine. However, as those who move most regularly and are therefore most likely to find this reminder useful are those who tend not to vote for the party in power.
Stopping this activity also means these groups will also be under represented when creating the new cinstituency boundaries.
When were boundaries last changed? How did they screw the results to prevent another Conservative victory, two (and a half) times?
Why no reduction in seats as recommended?
Why no oversight?
I'm not particularly a Labour supporter, not was I especially critical of the Conservative party until the last few years.
Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?
Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?
Yes, you are diverting away from your own topic. Im not guessing what you are thinking, the topic of this thread is there for every one to see for themselves, i have given plenty of irrefutable evidence for my statement and on top of that, you confirmed it yourself as i pointed out in my last post.
As for the rest of your post, I have answered the two questions you are parroting to everyone, with regards to the rest i will just say that claiming that people that move house are not tory voters is laughable and also refer you back to the points i made (and you repeatedly ignored) about the letter being insignificant when there are so many other reminders to vote.
Not voting is a choice, not a mistake.
You are telling me what my thoughts are again?
Thanks
You haven't given any "irrefutable evidence". You have just made assertions.
Provide some actual evidence. A reference. Some data. Anything that actually qualifies as evidence. Your opinion is just your opinion.
Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?
"As for boundry changes, if you want to claim it as nefarious feel free. However if this is true it could be considered as combatting labours attempt to skew in their favour by doing the same thing."
So is that yes it's a good idea or no it isn't? You also don't seem to know when the last boundary change was or how that has prevented any other party from being elected to power.
Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?
"NOBODY can claim they didnt know an election was happening"
I think that any process that makes it more likely that someone to vote is preferable for one that does not.
What do you think?
How am i telling you your thoughts?
I have simply proven, using your own words and posts, that you where lying when you claimed the post was not about postal reminders. This is irrefutable. If you want to claim that this is not what you meant then your words betray you, as does your initial engagement on the subject.
Your latest post is nothing more than garbaled piffle.
Trying to imply that i answered your question about voter engagement with the line you quoted is a demonstrable lie. I answered it directly and the post is again, there for all to see. The line you quoted was completely unrelated and you trying to misapropriate it is indicative of your underhanded debating technique.
It, is not my opinion that its not only labour voters that move house, it is an obvious fact with no proof needed.
It is not my opinion that the postal reminder is not the only (or main) reminder to register to vote. It is an obvious fact, no proof is needed, everyone had seen the party political broadcasts, incessant media coverage, leaflets, and social media circus etc at election time.
The proof of my claim you are avoiding points is the glaring absence of your response to them.
Your repeated opinion is neither proof not evidence.
Discussing one aspect of a thread in a few posts is neither distraction nor lies.
You are persistent though
I didn't write that "only" Labour supporters move house. I never even mentioned the party except in response to others.
I did not say that voter registration documents were the "only" way of reminding people to register to vote.
You can continue to have a parallel "argument" about whatever you like and claim that you have "won" whatever you wish as you are making up your own thread.
Why don't you start your own, then you can tell everyone what they really meant when they write something
It is not a parallel argument, it is the argument that you started but are trying to distance yourself from. As I have evidenced, and others have noticed and stated.
Opinion does not equal evidence.
Your demands and questions answered as directly as possible. Mine not so much
Yawn.
Last word to you as you can't help yourself "I did answer questions directly, you chose to misquote me which is hardly you being as direct as possible. It is however typical of you trying to obfuscate and save face. I have to keep saying the same thing as you keep on either avoiding it or lying about it. Its not about having the last word, its about calling out your nonsense. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If people cannot be bothered to register to vote the they cannot moan about it. It’s real easy takes less than 5 mins online and the argument about not having access is bollux you can even get to an Internet cafe to do it Free wifi at library,s too there really is no excuse not to register if you want to.Nice try with your usual Boris bashing posts but you really haven't thought this one through.
Determinedly focusing on just one thing.
Not read the article then? Not responding to the direct quotes either?
Not a surprise Yes i read it and have replied but i will repeat myself,there is nothing stopping people registering to vote.If people cant be bothered that is their problem not the governments,now if it was compulsory to vote like in Austria i would agree it would be up to the government to make sure everyone was registered but its not.If some lazy fuckers cant get off their arses (in fact they dont need to you can do it online) thats their problem not the governments.
Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?
Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?
Why so difficult to reply directly to a direct question? Governments are always redrawing bounderies whatever party and reducing mp,s can only be a good thing.Wish they could do it with the house of lords too.Reduced voter engagement is the voters fault its not hard to register.I dont know what data they are using do you? but would guess the last electoral roll which is pretty recent data as we have only recently had an election.
MP numbers are not being reduced.
Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data a good thing?
Is no Parliamentary oversight of this process a good thing?
Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?
Why so difficult to answer directly? Yes/no would actually be fine First tell me how voter engagement is being reduced?When an election is called everyone has the opportunity to register to vote yes or no?/.If you boundary has been redrawn does that stop you from registering to voter yes or no? Do you think that local councils should beable to access your data from various government sources yes or no?.The data protection tin foil hats would be having a field day ffs.So please explain how this is going to affect anyone who wants to vote in the next council or general election as it seems to me you are convinced that 9 million people will not be eligible to vote which i would say in the uk is illegal and would cause a law suit and a void election.
What is the purpose of redrawing boundaries?
If you do not have the correct information for who is in a constituency now, how do you redraw it?
The mailing to every residence is absolutely the most accurate method of measuring voter numbers, not inferring from other data.
I wrote nothing about not being eligible to vote.
Surely there are rules on size of each constituency which limits possible boundary changes. Is it not a commission that works on such things? Who stops people registering to vote? If they want to vote its perfectly accessible for all and more than well publicized
The Boundary Comission works to the terms that it is given and uses the data that it had available.
If it has less accurate data available it can less accurately draw boundaries.
Does that make logical sense?
I said nothing about people being prevented from voting.
I think that any process that makes it more likely that someone to vote is preferable for one that does not.
What do you think?
So they work within set parameters?
What data is inaccurate before they decide on boundaries?
Whatever constituency you happen to fall in it does not stop you registering. Even if yours changes you just register in your new one. If in doubt check.
Why does it affect Labour differently to other parties
Does it make logical sense that the most accurate voter data now will provide the best information for redrawing boundaries?
That's a completely neutral question. You must be able to answer that directly.
If you are not recording 9 million voters then you cannot draw boundaries correctly right?
I said nothing anywhere about being prevented from voting.
Once again, I think that any process that makes it more likely that someone to vote is preferable for one that does not.
What do you think?
I didn't mention Labour. I said that reduction in the votes of the young or the poor tended to favour the Tory party.
Do you disagree?
I did not say accurate data is not good. I asked what data is inaccurate BEFORE the boundary changes. So are you saying 9 million are not recorded before the boundary changes or will be after?. It's the individuals responsibility to make sure they are registered. If they do that then there is no problem. If they don't do it then it's down to them. Why do you say the poor and young will be affected more? Yes I disagree with you as I believe people have to take responsibility of their actions or in actions
There is a separate discussion about people's responsibility to register to vote if they wish and even distribution of population within a constituency.
You and I disagree over it being an inherent good that more people should vote. Fine.
Yes, several million people could be missing from voter registration. That is, undoubtedly, a maximum. That is because the paper system catches a lot of people who may otherwise not get around to registration because it is not an immediate priority and can easily be put off and forgotten.
If you don't believe that, then again how you view normal behaviour and priorities, particularly of younger people, is very different to my own.
The paper system currently maximises the accuracy of electoral data. Without replacing or supplementing this process then the data will be less accurate."Where did I say it's not a good thing more people should vote? Where I disagree is I believe people need to take responsibility and not leave such things to the state. As many have said the news of elections are unavoidable. If all these people you say are being left out took a few minutes to register and vote then we would have better turnouts which I welcome | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If people cannot be bothered to register to vote the they cannot moan about it. It’s real easy takes less than 5 mins online and the argument about not having access is bollux you can even get to an Internet cafe to do it Free wifi at library,s too there really is no excuse not to register if you want to.Nice try with your usual Boris bashing posts but you really haven't thought this one through.
Determinedly focusing on just one thing.
Not read the article then? Not responding to the direct quotes either?
Not a surprise Yes i read it and have replied but i will repeat myself,there is nothing stopping people registering to vote.If people cant be bothered that is their problem not the governments,now if it was compulsory to vote like in Austria i would agree it would be up to the government to make sure everyone was registered but its not.If some lazy fuckers cant get off their arses (in fact they dont need to you can do it online) thats their problem not the governments.
Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?
Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?
Why so difficult to reply directly to a direct question? Governments are always redrawing bounderies whatever party and reducing mp,s can only be a good thing.Wish they could do it with the house of lords too.Reduced voter engagement is the voters fault its not hard to register.I dont know what data they are using do you? but would guess the last electoral roll which is pretty recent data as we have only recently had an election.
MP numbers are not being reduced.
Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data a good thing?
Is no Parliamentary oversight of this process a good thing?
Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?
Why so difficult to answer directly? Yes/no would actually be fine First tell me how voter engagement is being reduced?When an election is called everyone has the opportunity to register to vote yes or no?/.If you boundary has been redrawn does that stop you from registering to voter yes or no? Do you think that local councils should beable to access your data from various government sources yes or no?.The data protection tin foil hats would be having a field day ffs.So please explain how this is going to affect anyone who wants to vote in the next council or general election as it seems to me you are convinced that 9 million people will not be eligible to vote which i would say in the uk is illegal and would cause a law suit and a void election.
What is the purpose of redrawing boundaries?
If you do not have the correct information for who is in a constituency now, how do you redraw it?
The mailing to every residence is absolutely the most accurate method of measuring voter numbers, not inferring from other data.
I wrote nothing about not being eligible to vote.
Surely there are rules on size of each constituency which limits possible boundary changes. Is it not a commission that works on such things? Who stops people registering to vote? If they want to vote its perfectly accessible for all and more than well publicized
The Boundary Comission works to the terms that it is given and uses the data that it had available.
If it has less accurate data available it can less accurately draw boundaries.
Does that make logical sense?
I said nothing about people being prevented from voting.
I think that any process that makes it more likely that someone to vote is preferable for one that does not.
What do you think?
So they work within set parameters?
What data is inaccurate before they decide on boundaries?
Whatever constituency you happen to fall in it does not stop you registering. Even if yours changes you just register in your new one. If in doubt check.
Why does it affect Labour differently to other parties
Does it make logical sense that the most accurate voter data now will provide the best information for redrawing boundaries?
That's a completely neutral question. You must be able to answer that directly.
If you are not recording 9 million voters then you cannot draw boundaries correctly right?
I said nothing anywhere about being prevented from voting.
Once again, I think that any process that makes it more likely that someone to vote is preferable for one that does not.
What do you think?
I didn't mention Labour. I said that reduction in the votes of the young or the poor tended to favour the Tory party.
Do you disagree?
I did not say accurate data is not good. I asked what data is inaccurate BEFORE the boundary changes. So are you saying 9 million are not recorded before the boundary changes or will be after?. It's the individuals responsibility to make sure they are registered. If they do that then there is no problem. If they don't do it then it's down to them. Why do you say the poor and young will be affected more? Yes I disagree with you as I believe people have to take responsibility of their actions or in actions
There is a separate discussion about people's responsibility to register to vote if they wish and even distribution of population within a constituency.
You and I disagree over it being an inherent good that more people should vote. Fine.
Yes, several million people could be missing from voter registration. That is, undoubtedly, a maximum. That is because the paper system catches a lot of people who may otherwise not get around to registration because it is not an immediate priority and can easily be put off and forgotten.
If you don't believe that, then again how you view normal behaviour and priorities, particularly of younger people, is very different to my own.
The paper system currently maximises the accuracy of electoral data. Without replacing or supplementing this process then the data will be less accurate.
Where did I say it's not a good thing more people should vote? Where I disagree is I believe people need to take responsibility and not leave such things to the state. As many have said the news of elections are unavoidable. If all these people you say are being left out took a few minutes to register and vote then we would have better turnouts which I welcome"So you do think it is a good thing that more people should vote? You haven't actually responded to that question have you? I think any opportunity the state or any other organisation provides to encourage this is good. You do not. You call it "taking responsibility" but you disagree with money being spent specifically to encourage this. The fact that this direct mailing also provides the most accurate measure of voter location is also of no importance to you with respect to setting constituency boundaries. Got it  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If people cannot be bothered to register to vote the they cannot moan about it. It’s real easy takes less than 5 mins online and the argument about not having access is bollux you can even get to an Internet cafe to do it Free wifi at library,s too there really is no excuse not to register if you want to.Nice try with your usual Boris bashing posts but you really haven't thought this one through.
Determinedly focusing on just one thing.
Not read the article then? Not responding to the direct quotes either?
Not a surprise Yes i read it and have replied but i will repeat myself,there is nothing stopping people registering to vote.If people cant be bothered that is their problem not the governments,now if it was compulsory to vote like in Austria i would agree it would be up to the government to make sure everyone was registered but its not.If some lazy fuckers cant get off their arses (in fact they dont need to you can do it online) thats their problem not the governments.
Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?
Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?
Why so difficult to reply directly to a direct question? Governments are always redrawing bounderies whatever party and reducing mp,s can only be a good thing.Wish they could do it with the house of lords too.Reduced voter engagement is the voters fault its not hard to register.I dont know what data they are using do you? but would guess the last electoral roll which is pretty recent data as we have only recently had an election.
MP numbers are not being reduced.
Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data a good thing?
Is no Parliamentary oversight of this process a good thing?
Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?
Why so difficult to answer directly? Yes/no would actually be fine First tell me how voter engagement is being reduced?When an election is called everyone has the opportunity to register to vote yes or no?/.If you boundary has been redrawn does that stop you from registering to voter yes or no? Do you think that local councils should beable to access your data from various government sources yes or no?.The data protection tin foil hats would be having a field day ffs.So please explain how this is going to affect anyone who wants to vote in the next council or general election as it seems to me you are convinced that 9 million people will not be eligible to vote which i would say in the uk is illegal and would cause a law suit and a void election.
What is the purpose of redrawing boundaries?
If you do not have the correct information for who is in a constituency now, how do you redraw it?
The mailing to every residence is absolutely the most accurate method of measuring voter numbers, not inferring from other data.
I wrote nothing about not being eligible to vote.
Surely there are rules on size of each constituency which limits possible boundary changes. Is it not a commission that works on such things? Who stops people registering to vote? If they want to vote its perfectly accessible for all and more than well publicized
The Boundary Comission works to the terms that it is given and uses the data that it had available.
If it has less accurate data available it can less accurately draw boundaries.
Does that make logical sense?
I said nothing about people being prevented from voting.
I think that any process that makes it more likely that someone to vote is preferable for one that does not.
What do you think?
So they work within set parameters?
What data is inaccurate before they decide on boundaries?
Whatever constituency you happen to fall in it does not stop you registering. Even if yours changes you just register in your new one. If in doubt check.
Why does it affect Labour differently to other parties
Does it make logical sense that the most accurate voter data now will provide the best information for redrawing boundaries?
That's a completely neutral question. You must be able to answer that directly.
If you are not recording 9 million voters then you cannot draw boundaries correctly right?
I said nothing anywhere about being prevented from voting.
Once again, I think that any process that makes it more likely that someone to vote is preferable for one that does not.
What do you think?
I didn't mention Labour. I said that reduction in the votes of the young or the poor tended to favour the Tory party.
Do you disagree?
I did not say accurate data is not good. I asked what data is inaccurate BEFORE the boundary changes. So are you saying 9 million are not recorded before the boundary changes or will be after?. It's the individuals responsibility to make sure they are registered. If they do that then there is no problem. If they don't do it then it's down to them. Why do you say the poor and young will be affected more? Yes I disagree with you as I believe people have to take responsibility of their actions or in actions
There is a separate discussion about people's responsibility to register to vote if they wish and even distribution of population within a constituency.
You and I disagree over it being an inherent good that more people should vote. Fine.
Yes, several million people could be missing from voter registration. That is, undoubtedly, a maximum. That is because the paper system catches a lot of people who may otherwise not get around to registration because it is not an immediate priority and can easily be put off and forgotten.
If you don't believe that, then again how you view normal behaviour and priorities, particularly of younger people, is very different to my own.
The paper system currently maximises the accuracy of electoral data. Without replacing or supplementing this process then the data will be less accurate.
Where did I say it's not a good thing more people should vote? Where I disagree is I believe people need to take responsibility and not leave such things to the state. As many have said the news of elections are unavoidable. If all these people you say are being left out took a few minutes to register and vote then we would have better turnouts which I welcome
So you do think it is a good thing that more people should vote?
You haven't actually responded to that question have you?
I think any opportunity the state or any other organisation provides to encourage this is good.
You do not. You call it "taking responsibility" but you disagree with money being spent specifically to encourage this.
The fact that this direct mailing also provides the most accurate measure of voter location is also of no importance to you with respect to setting constituency boundaries.
Got it "Yes of course and I have never said otherwise despite your false claims. Where we disagree is how that should be be achieved. At what point did I mention money? Yet again its you making things up. So to directly answer your question NO I do not think its up to the state I think people should take responsibility. I they want to vote register or check the register and vote. The elections are very well covered so no excuse for people who actually want to vote making sure they can GOT IT | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"yes everyone should vote. you have still not explained how 9 million mainly tory voters (your words) are being left off the electoral roll? " I did not say that everyone should vote. I said that everyone should be encouraged to vote and that anything that achieves that aim should be encouraged. Do you agree? This process affects the young and the poor he most as they are the most mobile. Direct mailing will achieve that in many cases. It is not the only way but nothing else is being proposed to replace this system even though this will be removed. The primary purpose is to accurately (as possible) log the population distribution of registered voters. This will allow boundary redrawing to be carried out in the most accurate way possible. Is that worth doing? In fact even more can and should be done which is not. There are already millions of people missing which the government is in no hurry to find. Read the article. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If people cannot be bothered to register to vote the they cannot moan about it. It’s real easy takes less than 5 mins online and the argument about not having access is bollux you can even get to an Internet cafe to do it Free wifi at library,s too there really is no excuse not to register if you want to.Nice try with your usual Boris bashing posts but you really haven't thought this one through.
Determinedly focusing on just one thing.
Not read the article then? Not responding to the direct quotes either?
Not a surprise Yes i read it and have replied but i will repeat myself,there is nothing stopping people registering to vote.If people cant be bothered that is their problem not the governments,now if it was compulsory to vote like in Austria i would agree it would be up to the government to make sure everyone was registered but its not.If some lazy fuckers cant get off their arses (in fact they dont need to you can do it online) thats their problem not the governments.
Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?
Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?
Why so difficult to reply directly to a direct question? Governments are always redrawing bounderies whatever party and reducing mp,s can only be a good thing.Wish they could do it with the house of lords too.Reduced voter engagement is the voters fault its not hard to register.I dont know what data they are using do you? but would guess the last electoral roll which is pretty recent data as we have only recently had an election.
MP numbers are not being reduced.
Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data a good thing?
Is no Parliamentary oversight of this process a good thing?
Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?
Why so difficult to answer directly? Yes/no would actually be fine First tell me how voter engagement is being reduced?When an election is called everyone has the opportunity to register to vote yes or no?/.If you boundary has been redrawn does that stop you from registering to voter yes or no? Do you think that local councils should beable to access your data from various government sources yes or no?.The data protection tin foil hats would be having a field day ffs.So please explain how this is going to affect anyone who wants to vote in the next council or general election as it seems to me you are convinced that 9 million people will not be eligible to vote which i would say in the uk is illegal and would cause a law suit and a void election.
What is the purpose of redrawing boundaries?
If you do not have the correct information for who is in a constituency now, how do you redraw it?
The mailing to every residence is absolutely the most accurate method of measuring voter numbers, not inferring from other data.
I wrote nothing about not being eligible to vote.
Surely there are rules on size of each constituency which limits possible boundary changes. Is it not a commission that works on such things? Who stops people registering to vote? If they want to vote its perfectly accessible for all and more than well publicized
The Boundary Comission works to the terms that it is given and uses the data that it had available.
If it has less accurate data available it can less accurately draw boundaries.
Does that make logical sense?
I said nothing about people being prevented from voting.
I think that any process that makes it more likely that someone to vote is preferable for one that does not.
What do you think?
So they work within set parameters?
What data is inaccurate before they decide on boundaries?
Whatever constituency you happen to fall in it does not stop you registering. Even if yours changes you just register in your new one. If in doubt check.
Why does it affect Labour differently to other parties
Does it make logical sense that the most accurate voter data now will provide the best information for redrawing boundaries?
That's a completely neutral question. You must be able to answer that directly.
If you are not recording 9 million voters then you cannot draw boundaries correctly right?
I said nothing anywhere about being prevented from voting.
Once again, I think that any process that makes it more likely that someone to vote is preferable for one that does not.
What do you think?
I didn't mention Labour. I said that reduction in the votes of the young or the poor tended to favour the Tory party.
Do you disagree?
I did not say accurate data is not good. I asked what data is inaccurate BEFORE the boundary changes. So are you saying 9 million are not recorded before the boundary changes or will be after?. It's the individuals responsibility to make sure they are registered. If they do that then there is no problem. If they don't do it then it's down to them. Why do you say the poor and young will be affected more? Yes I disagree with you as I believe people have to take responsibility of their actions or in actions
There is a separate discussion about people's responsibility to register to vote if they wish and even distribution of population within a constituency.
You and I disagree over it being an inherent good that more people should vote. Fine.
Yes, several million people could be missing from voter registration. That is, undoubtedly, a maximum. That is because the paper system catches a lot of people who may otherwise not get around to registration because it is not an immediate priority and can easily be put off and forgotten.
If you don't believe that, then again how you view normal behaviour and priorities, particularly of younger people, is very different to my own.
The paper system currently maximises the accuracy of electoral data. Without replacing or supplementing this process then the data will be less accurate.
Where did I say it's not a good thing more people should vote? Where I disagree is I believe people need to take responsibility and not leave such things to the state. As many have said the news of elections are unavoidable. If all these people you say are being left out took a few minutes to register and vote then we would have better turnouts which I welcome
So you do think it is a good thing that more people should vote?
You haven't actually responded to that question have you?
I think any opportunity the state or any other organisation provides to encourage this is good.
You do not. You call it "taking responsibility" but you disagree with money being spent specifically to encourage this.
The fact that this direct mailing also provides the most accurate measure of voter location is also of no importance to you with respect to setting constituency boundaries.
Got it
Yes of course and I have never said otherwise despite your false claims.
Where we disagree is how that should be be achieved.
At what point did I mention money? Yet again its you making things up.
So to directly answer your question NO I do not think its up to the state I think people should take responsibility. I they want to vote register or check the register and vote. The elections are very well covered so no excuse for people who actually want to vote making sure they can
GOT IT"So you do agree that the government should take all necessary steps to both encourage voting and accurately assess the numbers of people eligible vote so as to accurately draw constituency boundaries? We do not disagree at all in that case. I apologise for any misunderstanding | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If people cannot be bothered to register to vote the they cannot moan about it. It’s real easy takes less than 5 mins online and the argument about not having access is bollux you can even get to an Internet cafe to do it Free wifi at library,s too there really is no excuse not to register if you want to.Nice try with your usual Boris bashing posts but you really haven't thought this one through.
Determinedly focusing on just one thing.
Not read the article then? Not responding to the direct quotes either?
Not a surprise Yes i read it and have replied but i will repeat myself,there is nothing stopping people registering to vote.If people cant be bothered that is their problem not the governments,now if it was compulsory to vote like in Austria i would agree it would be up to the government to make sure everyone was registered but its not.If some lazy fuckers cant get off their arses (in fact they dont need to you can do it online) thats their problem not the governments.
Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?
Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?
Why so difficult to reply directly to a direct question? Governments are always redrawing bounderies whatever party and reducing mp,s can only be a good thing.Wish they could do it with the house of lords too.Reduced voter engagement is the voters fault its not hard to register.I dont know what data they are using do you? but would guess the last electoral roll which is pretty recent data as we have only recently had an election.
MP numbers are not being reduced.
Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data a good thing?
Is no Parliamentary oversight of this process a good thing?
Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?
Why so difficult to answer directly? Yes/no would actually be fine First tell me how voter engagement is being reduced?When an election is called everyone has the opportunity to register to vote yes or no?/.If you boundary has been redrawn does that stop you from registering to voter yes or no? Do you think that local councils should beable to access your data from various government sources yes or no?.The data protection tin foil hats would be having a field day ffs.So please explain how this is going to affect anyone who wants to vote in the next council or general election as it seems to me you are convinced that 9 million people will not be eligible to vote which i would say in the uk is illegal and would cause a law suit and a void election.
What is the purpose of redrawing boundaries?
If you do not have the correct information for who is in a constituency now, how do you redraw it?
The mailing to every residence is absolutely the most accurate method of measuring voter numbers, not inferring from other data.
I wrote nothing about not being eligible to vote.
Surely there are rules on size of each constituency which limits possible boundary changes. Is it not a commission that works on such things? Who stops people registering to vote? If they want to vote its perfectly accessible for all and more than well publicized
The Boundary Comission works to the terms that it is given and uses the data that it had available.
If it has less accurate data available it can less accurately draw boundaries.
Does that make logical sense?
I said nothing about people being prevented from voting.
I think that any process that makes it more likely that someone to vote is preferable for one that does not.
What do you think?
So they work within set parameters?
What data is inaccurate before they decide on boundaries?
Whatever constituency you happen to fall in it does not stop you registering. Even if yours changes you just register in your new one. If in doubt check.
Why does it affect Labour differently to other parties
Does it make logical sense that the most accurate voter data now will provide the best information for redrawing boundaries?
That's a completely neutral question. You must be able to answer that directly.
If you are not recording 9 million voters then you cannot draw boundaries correctly right?
I said nothing anywhere about being prevented from voting.
Once again, I think that any process that makes it more likely that someone to vote is preferable for one that does not.
What do you think?
I didn't mention Labour. I said that reduction in the votes of the young or the poor tended to favour the Tory party.
Do you disagree?
I did not say accurate data is not good. I asked what data is inaccurate BEFORE the boundary changes. So are you saying 9 million are not recorded before the boundary changes or will be after?. It's the individuals responsibility to make sure they are registered. If they do that then there is no problem. If they don't do it then it's down to them. Why do you say the poor and young will be affected more? Yes I disagree with you as I believe people have to take responsibility of their actions or in actions
There is a separate discussion about people's responsibility to register to vote if they wish and even distribution of population within a constituency.
You and I disagree over it being an inherent good that more people should vote. Fine.
Yes, several million people could be missing from voter registration. That is, undoubtedly, a maximum. That is because the paper system catches a lot of people who may otherwise not get around to registration because it is not an immediate priority and can easily be put off and forgotten.
If you don't believe that, then again how you view normal behaviour and priorities, particularly of younger people, is very different to my own.
The paper system currently maximises the accuracy of electoral data. Without replacing or supplementing this process then the data will be less accurate.
Where did I say it's not a good thing more people should vote? Where I disagree is I believe people need to take responsibility and not leave such things to the state. As many have said the news of elections are unavoidable. If all these people you say are being left out took a few minutes to register and vote then we would have better turnouts which I welcome
So you do think it is a good thing that more people should vote?
You haven't actually responded to that question have you?
I think any opportunity the state or any other organisation provides to encourage this is good.
You do not. You call it "taking responsibility" but you disagree with money being spent specifically to encourage this.
The fact that this direct mailing also provides the most accurate measure of voter location is also of no importance to you with respect to setting constituency boundaries.
Got it
Yes of course and I have never said otherwise despite your false claims.
Where we disagree is how that should be be achieved.
At what point did I mention money? Yet again its you making things up.
So to directly answer your question NO I do not think its up to the state I think people should take responsibility. I they want to vote register or check the register and vote. The elections are very well covered so no excuse for people who actually want to vote making sure they can
GOT IT
So you do agree that the government should take all necessary steps to both encourage voting and accurately assess the numbers of people eligible vote so as to accurately draw constituency boundaries?
We do not disagree at all in that case.
I apologise for any misunderstanding "I think you need to 're read my last post as I clearly said NO I don't think its up to the state instead it is people's responsibility to register or check the register and vote. The end goal of people voting we seem to agree. How we get there we disagree. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If people cannot be bothered to register to vote the they cannot moan about it. It’s real easy takes less than 5 mins online and the argument about not having access is bollux you can even get to an Internet cafe to do it Free wifi at library,s too there really is no excuse not to register if you want to.Nice try with your usual Boris bashing posts but you really haven't thought this one through.
Determinedly focusing on just one thing.
Not read the article then? Not responding to the direct quotes either?
Not a surprise Yes i read it and have replied but i will repeat myself,there is nothing stopping people registering to vote.If people cant be bothered that is their problem not the governments,now if it was compulsory to vote like in Austria i would agree it would be up to the government to make sure everyone was registered but its not.If some lazy fuckers cant get off their arses (in fact they dont need to you can do it online) thats their problem not the governments.
Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?
Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?
Why so difficult to reply directly to a direct question? Governments are always redrawing bounderies whatever party and reducing mp,s can only be a good thing.Wish they could do it with the house of lords too.Reduced voter engagement is the voters fault its not hard to register.I dont know what data they are using do you? but would guess the last electoral roll which is pretty recent data as we have only recently had an election.
MP numbers are not being reduced.
Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data a good thing?
Is no Parliamentary oversight of this process a good thing?
Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?
Why so difficult to answer directly? Yes/no would actually be fine First tell me how voter engagement is being reduced?When an election is called everyone has the opportunity to register to vote yes or no?/.If you boundary has been redrawn does that stop you from registering to voter yes or no? Do you think that local councils should beable to access your data from various government sources yes or no?.The data protection tin foil hats would be having a field day ffs.So please explain how this is going to affect anyone who wants to vote in the next council or general election as it seems to me you are convinced that 9 million people will not be eligible to vote which i would say in the uk is illegal and would cause a law suit and a void election.
What is the purpose of redrawing boundaries?
If you do not have the correct information for who is in a constituency now, how do you redraw it?
The mailing to every residence is absolutely the most accurate method of measuring voter numbers, not inferring from other data.
I wrote nothing about not being eligible to vote.
Surely there are rules on size of each constituency which limits possible boundary changes. Is it not a commission that works on such things? Who stops people registering to vote? If they want to vote its perfectly accessible for all and more than well publicized
The Boundary Comission works to the terms that it is given and uses the data that it had available.
If it has less accurate data available it can less accurately draw boundaries.
Does that make logical sense?
I said nothing about people being prevented from voting.
I think that any process that makes it more likely that someone to vote is preferable for one that does not.
What do you think?
So they work within set parameters?
What data is inaccurate before they decide on boundaries?
Whatever constituency you happen to fall in it does not stop you registering. Even if yours changes you just register in your new one. If in doubt check.
Why does it affect Labour differently to other parties
Does it make logical sense that the most accurate voter data now will provide the best information for redrawing boundaries?
That's a completely neutral question. You must be able to answer that directly.
If you are not recording 9 million voters then you cannot draw boundaries correctly right?
I said nothing anywhere about being prevented from voting.
Once again, I think that any process that makes it more likely that someone to vote is preferable for one that does not.
What do you think?
I didn't mention Labour. I said that reduction in the votes of the young or the poor tended to favour the Tory party.
Do you disagree?
I did not say accurate data is not good. I asked what data is inaccurate BEFORE the boundary changes. So are you saying 9 million are not recorded before the boundary changes or will be after?. It's the individuals responsibility to make sure they are registered. If they do that then there is no problem. If they don't do it then it's down to them. Why do you say the poor and young will be affected more? Yes I disagree with you as I believe people have to take responsibility of their actions or in actions
There is a separate discussion about people's responsibility to register to vote if they wish and even distribution of population within a constituency.
You and I disagree over it being an inherent good that more people should vote. Fine.
Yes, several million people could be missing from voter registration. That is, undoubtedly, a maximum. That is because the paper system catches a lot of people who may otherwise not get around to registration because it is not an immediate priority and can easily be put off and forgotten.
If you don't believe that, then again how you view normal behaviour and priorities, particularly of younger people, is very different to my own.
The paper system currently maximises the accuracy of electoral data. Without replacing or supplementing this process then the data will be less accurate.
Where did I say it's not a good thing more people should vote? Where I disagree is I believe people need to take responsibility and not leave such things to the state. As many have said the news of elections are unavoidable. If all these people you say are being left out took a few minutes to register and vote then we would have better turnouts which I welcome
So you do think it is a good thing that more people should vote?
You haven't actually responded to that question have you?
I think any opportunity the state or any other organisation provides to encourage this is good.
You do not. You call it "taking responsibility" but you disagree with money being spent specifically to encourage this.
The fact that this direct mailing also provides the most accurate measure of voter location is also of no importance to you with respect to setting constituency boundaries.
Got it
Yes of course and I have never said otherwise despite your false claims.
Where we disagree is how that should be be achieved.
At what point did I mention money? Yet again its you making things up.
So to directly answer your question NO I do not think its up to the state I think people should take responsibility. I they want to vote register or check the register and vote. The elections are very well covered so no excuse for people who actually want to vote making sure they can
GOT IT
So you do agree that the government should take all necessary steps to both encourage voting and accurately assess the numbers of people eligible vote so as to accurately draw constituency boundaries?
We do not disagree at all in that case.
I apologise for any misunderstanding
I think you need to 're read my last post as I clearly said NO I don't think its up to the state instead it is people's responsibility to register or check the register and vote. The end goal of people voting we seem to agree. How we get there we disagree. "Right. So you do not think that as many people as possible should be encouraged to vote? I have no idea of your opinion on achieving the most accurate data for drawing constituency boundaries. If this accidentally means that the state encourages people to register to vote is that a good or a bad thing? I can't help but be confused by what yoga re actually saying. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"yes everyone should vote. you have still not explained how 9 million mainly tory voters (your words) are being left off the electoral roll? I did not say that everyone should vote. I said that everyone should be encouraged to vote and that anything that achieves that aim should be encouraged. Do you agree? This process affects the young and the poor he most as they are the most mobile. Direct mailing will achieve that in many cases. It is not the only way but nothing else is being proposed to replace this system even though this will be removed. The primary purpose is to accurately (as possible) log the population distribution of registered voters. This will allow boundary redrawing to be carried out in the most accurate way possible. Is that worth doing? In fact even more can and should be done which is not. There are already millions of people missing which the government is in no hurry to find. Read the article." I have read it and as I said before it's not hard to register to vote.I am sure that the electoral commission know how many houses there are in the areas being redefined so mailing every household is a total waste of money.It will be years before the next election and people move about so I still don't see your point apart from the fact you read something in the independent and thought it would be a good Tory bashing thread without thinking that the article is a load of non news. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"yes everyone should vote. you have still not explained how 9 million mainly tory voters (your words) are being left off the electoral roll? I did not say that everyone should vote. I said that everyone should be encouraged to vote and that anything that achieves that aim should be encouraged. Do you agree? This process affects the young and the poor he most as they are the most mobile. Direct mailing will achieve that in many cases. It is not the only way but nothing else is being proposed to replace this system even though this will be removed. The primary purpose is to accurately (as possible) log the population distribution of registered voters. This will allow boundary redrawing to be carried out in the most accurate way possible. Is that worth doing? In fact even more can and should be done which is not. There are already millions of people missing which the government is in no hurry to find. Read the article. I have read it and as I said before it's not hard to register to vote.I am sure that the electoral commission know how many houses there are in the areas being redefined so mailing every household is a total waste of money.It will be years before the next election and people move about so I still don't see your point apart from the fact you read something in the independent and thought it would be a good Tory bashing thread without thinking that the article is a load of non news. "What did you understand from the article then? Your post here implies that you seem confused. For instance, how does the number of houses tell you how many eligible voters there are in them? Have the Electoral Commission said that everything is fine? Does this mean something different to you than it does to me? "Ministers have failed to respond to the Electoral Commission’s call for modern methods to drag registration into the 21st century for almost one year" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"yes everyone should vote. you have still not explained how 9 million mainly tory voters (your words) are being left off the electoral roll? I did not say that everyone should vote. I said that everyone should be encouraged to vote and that anything that achieves that aim should be encouraged. Do you agree? This process affects the young and the poor he most as they are the most mobile. Direct mailing will achieve that in many cases. It is not the only way but nothing else is being proposed to replace this system even though this will be removed. The primary purpose is to accurately (as possible) log the population distribution of registered voters. This will allow boundary redrawing to be carried out in the most accurate way possible. Is that worth doing? In fact even more can and should be done which is not. There are already millions of people missing which the government is in no hurry to find. Read the article. I have read it and as I said before it's not hard to register to vote.I am sure that the electoral commission know how many houses there are in the areas being redefined so mailing every household is a total waste of money.It will be years before the next election and people move about so I still don't see your point apart from the fact you read something in the independent and thought it would be a good Tory bashing thread without thinking that the article is a load of non news.
What did you understand from the article then?
Your post here implies that you seem confused.
For instance, how does the number of houses tell you how many eligible voters there are in them?
Have the Electoral Commission said that everything is fine?
Does this mean something different to you than it does to me?
"Ministers have failed to respond to the Electoral Commission’s call for modern methods to drag registration into the 21st century for almost one year""How is mailing everyone as you suggest MODERN METHODS did you read the article? I think the postal service started in the 1600,s hardly modern.I can imagine the data protection conspiracy theorists having a field day them collecting data from all government sources when most of them would not sign up for an app.But getting back the main post how is any of this remotely connected to VOTER SUPPRESSION???????? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"yes everyone should vote. you have still not explained how 9 million mainly tory voters (your words) are being left off the electoral roll? I did not say that everyone should vote. I said that everyone should be encouraged to vote and that anything that achieves that aim should be encouraged. Do you agree? This process affects the young and the poor he most as they are the most mobile. Direct mailing will achieve that in many cases. It is not the only way but nothing else is being proposed to replace this system even though this will be removed. The primary purpose is to accurately (as possible) log the population distribution of registered voters. This will allow boundary redrawing to be carried out in the most accurate way possible. Is that worth doing? In fact even more can and should be done which is not. There are already millions of people missing which the government is in no hurry to find. Read the article. I have read it and as I said before it's not hard to register to vote.I am sure that the electoral commission know how many houses there are in the areas being redefined so mailing every household is a total waste of money.It will be years before the next election and people move about so I still don't see your point apart from the fact you read something in the independent and thought it would be a good Tory bashing thread without thinking that the article is a load of non news.
What did you understand from the article then?
Your post here implies that you seem confused.
For instance, how does the number of houses tell you how many eligible voters there are in them?
Have the Electoral Commission said that everything is fine?
Does this mean something different to you than it does to me?
"Ministers have failed to respond to the Electoral Commission’s call for modern methods to drag registration into the 21st century for almost one year"How is mailing everyone as you suggest MODERN METHODS did you read the article? I think the postal service started in the 1600,s hardly modern.I can imagine the data protection conspiracy theorists having a field day them collecting data from all government sources when most of them would not sign up for an app.But getting back the main post how is any of this remotely connected to VOTER SUPPRESSION???????? "That's the best that we have without something new, but that is going to be removed as well without anything to replace it. That's the point. I thought that you read the article? It means that methods to I crease the registration of voters are not being explored. In fact, they are being reduced. I thought that you read the article? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"yes everyone should vote. you have still not explained how 9 million mainly tory voters (your words) are being left off the electoral roll? I did not say that everyone should vote. I said that everyone should be encouraged to vote and that anything that achieves that aim should be encouraged. Do you agree? This process affects the young and the poor he most as they are the most mobile. Direct mailing will achieve that in many cases. It is not the only way but nothing else is being proposed to replace this system even though this will be removed. The primary purpose is to accurately (as possible) log the population distribution of registered voters. This will allow boundary redrawing to be carried out in the most accurate way possible. Is that worth doing? In fact even more can and should be done which is not. There are already millions of people missing which the government is in no hurry to find. Read the article. I have read it and as I said before it's not hard to register to vote.I am sure that the electoral commission know how many houses there are in the areas being redefined so mailing every household is a total waste of money.It will be years before the next election and people move about so I still don't see your point apart from the fact you read something in the independent and thought it would be a good Tory bashing thread without thinking that the article is a load of non news.
What did you understand from the article then?
Your post here implies that you seem confused.
For instance, how does the number of houses tell you how many eligible voters there are in them?
Have the Electoral Commission said that everything is fine?
Does this mean something different to you than it does to me?
"Ministers have failed to respond to the Electoral Commission’s call for modern methods to drag registration into the 21st century for almost one year"How is mailing everyone as you suggest MODERN METHODS did you read the article? I think the postal service started in the 1600,s hardly modern.I can imagine the data protection conspiracy theorists having a field day them collecting data from all government sources when most of them would not sign up for an app.But getting back the main post how is any of this remotely connected to VOTER SUPPRESSION????????
That's the best that we have without something new, but that is going to be removed as well without anything to replace it.
That's the point.
I thought that you read the article?
It means that methods to I crease the registration of voters are not being explored. In fact, they are being reduced.
I thought that you read the article?"How many more times i read it what has it got to do with voter suppression??????????? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"yes everyone should vote. you have still not explained how 9 million mainly tory voters (your words) are being left off the electoral roll? I did not say that everyone should vote. I said that everyone should be encouraged to vote and that anything that achieves that aim should be encouraged. Do you agree? This process affects the young and the poor he most as they are the most mobile. Direct mailing will achieve that in many cases. It is not the only way but nothing else is being proposed to replace this system even though this will be removed. The primary purpose is to accurately (as possible) log the population distribution of registered voters. This will allow boundary redrawing to be carried out in the most accurate way possible. Is that worth doing? In fact even more can and should be done which is not. There are already millions of people missing which the government is in no hurry to find. Read the article. I have read it and as I said before it's not hard to register to vote.I am sure that the electoral commission know how many houses there are in the areas being redefined so mailing every household is a total waste of money.It will be years before the next election and people move about so I still don't see your point apart from the fact you read something in the independent and thought it would be a good Tory bashing thread without thinking that the article is a load of non news.
What did you understand from the article then?
Your post here implies that you seem confused.
For instance, how does the number of houses tell you how many eligible voters there are in them?
Have the Electoral Commission said that everything is fine?
Does this mean something different to you than it does to me?
"Ministers have failed to respond to the Electoral Commission’s call for modern methods to drag registration into the 21st century for almost one year"How is mailing everyone as you suggest MODERN METHODS did you read the article? I think the postal service started in the 1600,s hardly modern.I can imagine the data protection conspiracy theorists having a field day them collecting data from all government sources when most of them would not sign up for an app.But getting back the main post how is any of this remotely connected to VOTER SUPPRESSION????????
That's the best that we have without something new, but that is going to be removed as well without anything to replace it.
That's the point.
I thought that you read the article?
It means that methods to I crease the registration of voters are not being explored. In fact, they are being reduced.
I thought that you read the article?How many more times i read it what has it got to do with voter suppression???????????""It means that methods to increase the registration of voters are not being explored. In fact, they are being REDUCED." Capitals for emphasis only. Not shouting. Reducing opportunity for voter registration is voter suppression. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"yes everyone should vote. you have still not explained how 9 million mainly tory voters (your words) are being left off the electoral roll? I did not say that everyone should vote. I said that everyone should be encouraged to vote and that anything that achieves that aim should be encouraged. Do you agree? This process affects the young and the poor he most as they are the most mobile. Direct mailing will achieve that in many cases. It is not the only way but nothing else is being proposed to replace this system even though this will be removed. The primary purpose is to accurately (as possible) log the population distribution of registered voters. This will allow boundary redrawing to be carried out in the most accurate way possible. Is that worth doing? In fact even more can and should be done which is not. There are already millions of people missing which the government is in no hurry to find. Read the article. I have read it and as I said before it's not hard to register to vote.I am sure that the electoral commission know how many houses there are in the areas being redefined so mailing every household is a total waste of money.It will be years before the next election and people move about so I still don't see your point apart from the fact you read something in the independent and thought it would be a good Tory bashing thread without thinking that the article is a load of non news.
What did you understand from the article then?
Your post here implies that you seem confused.
For instance, how does the number of houses tell you how many eligible voters there are in them?
Have the Electoral Commission said that everything is fine?
Does this mean something different to you than it does to me?
"Ministers have failed to respond to the Electoral Commission’s call for modern methods to drag registration into the 21st century for almost one year"How is mailing everyone as you suggest MODERN METHODS did you read the article? I think the postal service started in the 1600,s hardly modern.I can imagine the data protection conspiracy theorists having a field day them collecting data from all government sources when most of them would not sign up for an app.But getting back the main post how is any of this remotely connected to VOTER SUPPRESSION????????
That's the best that we have without something new, but that is going to be removed as well without anything to replace it.
That's the point.
I thought that you read the article?
It means that methods to I crease the registration of voters are not being explored. In fact, they are being reduced.
I thought that you read the article?How many more times i read it what has it got to do with voter suppression???????????
"It means that methods to increase the registration of voters are not being explored. In fact, they are being REDUCED."
Capitals for emphasis only. Not shouting. Reducing opportunity for voter registration is voter suppression."But its not reducing opportunity to voter registration is it? everyone still has the same opportunity no matter how you try to spin it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"yes everyone should vote. you have still not explained how 9 million mainly tory voters (your words) are being left off the electoral roll? I did not say that everyone should vote. I said that everyone should be encouraged to vote and that anything that achieves that aim should be encouraged. Do you agree? This process affects the young and the poor he most as they are the most mobile. Direct mailing will achieve that in many cases. It is not the only way but nothing else is being proposed to replace this system even though this will be removed. The primary purpose is to accurately (as possible) log the population distribution of registered voters. This will allow boundary redrawing to be carried out in the most accurate way possible. Is that worth doing? In fact even more can and should be done which is not. There are already millions of people missing which the government is in no hurry to find. Read the article. I have read it and as I said before it's not hard to register to vote.I am sure that the electoral commission know how many houses there are in the areas being redefined so mailing every household is a total waste of money.It will be years before the next election and people move about so I still don't see your point apart from the fact you read something in the independent and thought it would be a good Tory bashing thread without thinking that the article is a load of non news.
What did you understand from the article then?
Your post here implies that you seem confused.
For instance, how does the number of houses tell you how many eligible voters there are in them?
Have the Electoral Commission said that everything is fine?
Does this mean something different to you than it does to me?
"Ministers have failed to respond to the Electoral Commission’s call for modern methods to drag registration into the 21st century for almost one year"How is mailing everyone as you suggest MODERN METHODS did you read the article? I think the postal service started in the 1600,s hardly modern.I can imagine the data protection conspiracy theorists having a field day them collecting data from all government sources when most of them would not sign up for an app.But getting back the main post how is any of this remotely connected to VOTER SUPPRESSION????????
That's the best that we have without something new, but that is going to be removed as well without anything to replace it.
That's the point.
I thought that you read the article?
It means that methods to I crease the registration of voters are not being explored. In fact, they are being reduced.
I thought that you read the article?How many more times i read it what has it got to do with voter suppression???????????
"It means that methods to increase the registration of voters are not being explored. In fact, they are being REDUCED."
Capitals for emphasis only. Not shouting. Reducing opportunity for voter registration is voter suppression."You might be able to consider it suppression if there wasn't another option for people to register to vote. As it stands people can register to vote online in minutes (implemented under a tory gov btw). Nobody is losing their right or ability to vote and as I have said repeatedly, People have more than enough prompts to remind them already. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"yes everyone should vote. you have still not explained how 9 million mainly tory voters (your words) are being left off the electoral roll? I did not say that everyone should vote. I said that everyone should be encouraged to vote and that anything that achieves that aim should be encouraged. Do you agree? This process affects the young and the poor he most as they are the most mobile. Direct mailing will achieve that in many cases. It is not the only way but nothing else is being proposed to replace this system even though this will be removed. The primary purpose is to accurately (as possible) log the population distribution of registered voters. This will allow boundary redrawing to be carried out in the most accurate way possible. Is that worth doing? In fact even more can and should be done which is not. There are already millions of people missing which the government is in no hurry to find. Read the article. I have read it and as I said before it's not hard to register to vote.I am sure that the electoral commission know how many houses there are in the areas being redefined so mailing every household is a total waste of money.It will be years before the next election and people move about so I still don't see your point apart from the fact you read something in the independent and thought it would be a good Tory bashing thread without thinking that the article is a load of non news.
What did you understand from the article then?
Your post here implies that you seem confused.
For instance, how does the number of houses tell you how many eligible voters there are in them?
Have the Electoral Commission said that everything is fine?
Does this mean something different to you than it does to me?
"Ministers have failed to respond to the Electoral Commission’s call for modern methods to drag registration into the 21st century for almost one year"How is mailing everyone as you suggest MODERN METHODS did you read the article? I think the postal service started in the 1600,s hardly modern.I can imagine the data protection conspiracy theorists having a field day them collecting data from all government sources when most of them would not sign up for an app.But getting back the main post how is any of this remotely connected to VOTER SUPPRESSION????????
That's the best that we have without something new, but that is going to be removed as well without anything to replace it.
That's the point.
I thought that you read the article?
It means that methods to I crease the registration of voters are not being explored. In fact, they are being reduced.
I thought that you read the article?How many more times i read it what has it got to do with voter suppression???????????
"It means that methods to increase the registration of voters are not being explored. In fact, they are being REDUCED."
Capitals for emphasis only. Not shouting. Reducing opportunity for voter registration is voter suppression."As long as people are not denied the opportunity to register I don't see your point. It's simple and easy to do and is not affected by being young or poor. I thought encouraging things to be done online was all the rage and in this case cuts down on paper and postage | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Apparently everyone thinks that encouraging people to register to vote is a good thing. Does anyone not? Apparently the state making any effort to encourage people to register to vote is bad. Is that correct? Having accurate data to correctly define constituency boundaries is a good thing. Is that correct? Using the current method of direct mailing is not an acceptable method to do this. It does, in fact, miss a lot of people. Is that correct? Removing direct voter registration is acceptable with no other method being put in place even if that reduces registration further. Is that correct?" 1 - A fair assumption, most people would want others to have the opportunity to vote. 2 - Not one person has said that. 3 - Not one person has said it is not a good thing. 4 - Not one person has said it is not an acceptable way, just questioned its necessity. 5 - Not one person has said it is ok to reduce registration. They have said they don't believe it will make a difference. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Apparently everyone thinks that encouraging people to register to vote is a good thing. Does anyone not? Apparently the state making any effort to encourage people to register to vote is bad. Is that correct? Having accurate data to correctly define constituency boundaries is a good thing. Is that correct? Using the current method of direct mailing is not an acceptable method to do this. It does, in fact, miss a lot of people. Is that correct? Removing direct voter registration is acceptable with no other method being put in place even if that reduces registration further. Is that correct? 1 - A fair assumption, most people would want others to have the opportunity to vote. 2 - Not one person has said that. 3 - Not one person has said it is not a good thing. 4 - Not one person has said it is not an acceptable way, just questioned its necessity. 5 - Not one person has said it is ok to reduce registration. They have said they don't believe it will make a difference. " following on, (I hit post before I was finished) All but one of your assertions are a strawman argument. You are deliberately avoiding what people are saying and misrepresenting what they mean. Postal reminders are out dated and unnecessary. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Apparently everyone thinks that encouraging people to register to vote is a good thing. Does anyone not? Apparently the state making any effort to encourage people to register to vote is bad. Is that correct? Having accurate data to correctly define constituency boundaries is a good thing. Is that correct? Using the current method of direct mailing is not an acceptable method to do this. It does, in fact, miss a lot of people. Is that correct? Removing direct voter registration is acceptable with no other method being put in place even if that reduces registration further. Is that correct? 1 - A fair assumption, most people would want others to have the opportunity to vote. 2 - Not one person has said that. 3 - Not one person has said it is not a good thing. 4 - Not one person has said it is not an acceptable way, just questioned its necessity. 5 - Not one person has said it is ok to reduce registration. They have said they don't believe it will make a difference. following on, (I hit post before I was finished) All but one of your assertions are a strawman argument. You are deliberately avoiding what people are saying and misrepresenting what they mean. Postal reminders are out dated and unnecessary." A "strawman" argument based on what? They are questions, not "an argument". Let me rewrite this then. 1 - Everyone thinks that encouraging people to register to vote is a good thing. 2 - The state making any effort to encourage people to register to vote is a good thing. 3 - Having accurate data to correctly define constituency boundaries is a good thing 4 - Using the current method of direct mailing is an acceptable method to do this even if it misses some potential voters out. 5 - Removing direct voter registration is not acceptable with no other method being put in place as it would reduce voter registration. If this is what you meant then I agree too | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Apparently everyone thinks that encouraging people to register to vote is a good thing. Does anyone not? Apparently the state making any effort to encourage people to register to vote is bad. Is that correct? Having accurate data to correctly define constituency boundaries is a good thing. Is that correct? Using the current method of direct mailing is not an acceptable method to do this. It does, in fact, miss a lot of people. Is that correct? Removing direct voter registration is acceptable with no other method being put in place even if that reduces registration further. Is that correct? 1 - A fair assumption, most people would want others to have the opportunity to vote. 2 - Not one person has said that. 3 - Not one person has said it is not a good thing. 4 - Not one person has said it is not an acceptable way, just questioned its necessity. 5 - Not one person has said it is ok to reduce registration. They have said they don't believe it will make a difference." Give up mate he will have you going round in circles no matter how clearly you put it and has to have the last word. Very entertaining though.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Apparently everyone thinks that encouraging people to register to vote is a good thing. Does anyone not? Apparently the state making any effort to encourage people to register to vote is bad. Is that correct? Having accurate data to correctly define constituency boundaries is a good thing. Is that correct? Using the current method of direct mailing is not an acceptable method to do this. It does, in fact, miss a lot of people. Is that correct? Removing direct voter registration is acceptable with no other method being put in place even if that reduces registration further. Is that correct? 1 - A fair assumption, most people would want others to have the opportunity to vote. 2 - Not one person has said that. 3 - Not one person has said it is not a good thing. 4 - Not one person has said it is not an acceptable way, just questioned its necessity. 5 - Not one person has said it is ok to reduce registration. They have said they don't believe it will make a difference. Give up mate he will have you going round in circles no matter how clearly you put it and has to have the last word. Very entertaining though. "That's the point though. You are all simultaneously agreeing and disagreeing with me. Hadn't you noticed? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Apparently everyone thinks that encouraging people to register to vote is a good thing. Does anyone not? Apparently the state making any effort to encourage people to register to vote is bad. Is that correct? Having accurate data to correctly define constituency boundaries is a good thing. Is that correct? Using the current method of direct mailing is not an acceptable method to do this. It does, in fact, miss a lot of people. Is that correct? Removing direct voter registration is acceptable with no other method being put in place even if that reduces registration further. Is that correct? 1 - A fair assumption, most people would want others to have the opportunity to vote. 2 - Not one person has said that. 3 - Not one person has said it is not a good thing. 4 - Not one person has said it is not an acceptable way, just questioned its necessity. 5 - Not one person has said it is ok to reduce registration. They have said they don't believe it will make a difference. following on, (I hit post before I was finished) All but one of your assertions are a strawman argument. You are deliberately avoiding what people are saying and misrepresenting what they mean. Postal reminders are out dated and unnecessary. A "strawman" argument based on what? They are questions, not "an argument". Let me rewrite this then. 1 - Everyone thinks that encouraging people to register to vote is a good thing. 2 - The state making any effort to encourage people to register to vote is a good thing. 3 - Having accurate data to correctly define constituency boundaries is a good thing 4 - Using the current method of direct mailing is an acceptable method to do this even if it misses some potential voters out. 5 - Removing direct voter registration is not acceptable with no other method being put in place as it would reduce voter registration. If this is what you meant then I agree too ""Strawman Fallacy Description: Substituting a person’s actual position or argument with a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of the position or the argument." You made a list of statements that you want to imply I or others have said and as such you misrepresent our position. You ignore my explicit statement saying that postal reminders are unnecessary and outdated and instead try to imply that I agree with you by once again using things i havent said. I.e straw manning. Rather than engage on my point/the crux of the matter you go around the houses trying to gain a "micro victory" by spuriously trying to "tell me what i think". Both of which you previously tried to accuse me of. (It is worth noting that in psychology this is called projecting, a narcissistic trait commonly accompanied by gaslighting, which you accused someone of yesterday.... "projection refers to unconsciously taking unwanted emotions or traits you don’t like about yourself and attributing them to someone else. A common example is a cheating spouse who suspects their partner is being unfaithful. Instead of acknowledging their own infidelity, they transfer, or project, this behavior onto their partner" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Apparently everyone thinks that encouraging people to register to vote is a good thing. Does anyone not? Apparently the state making any effort to encourage people to register to vote is bad. Is that correct? Having accurate data to correctly define constituency boundaries is a good thing. Is that correct? Using the current method of direct mailing is not an acceptable method to do this. It does, in fact, miss a lot of people. Is that correct? Removing direct voter registration is acceptable with no other method being put in place even if that reduces registration further. Is that correct? 1 - A fair assumption, most people would want others to have the opportunity to vote. 2 - Not one person has said that. 3 - Not one person has said it is not a good thing. 4 - Not one person has said it is not an acceptable way, just questioned its necessity. 5 - Not one person has said it is ok to reduce registration. They have said they don't believe it will make a difference. Give up mate he will have you going round in circles no matter how clearly you put it and has to have the last word. Very entertaining though.
That's the point though.
You are all simultaneously agreeing and disagreeing with me.
Hadn't you noticed? "Of course i have noticed, it is the basis of me saying you are both straw manning and avoiding the point. You make a point that we can agree on yet unrelated to the argument i am making (such as the one about encouraging people to vote being a good thing)and use that point to claim i am agreeing with your counter argument. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Apparently everyone thinks that encouraging people to register to vote is a good thing. Does anyone not? Apparently the state making any effort to encourage people to register to vote is bad. Is that correct? Having accurate data to correctly define constituency boundaries is a good thing. Is that correct? Using the current method of direct mailing is not an acceptable method to do this. It does, in fact, miss a lot of people. Is that correct? Removing direct voter registration is acceptable with no other method being put in place even if that reduces registration further. Is that correct? 1 - A fair assumption, most people would want others to have the opportunity to vote. 2 - Not one person has said that. 3 - Not one person has said it is not a good thing. 4 - Not one person has said it is not an acceptable way, just questioned its necessity. 5 - Not one person has said it is ok to reduce registration. They have said they don't believe it will make a difference. following on, (I hit post before I was finished) All but one of your assertions are a strawman argument. You are deliberately avoiding what people are saying and misrepresenting what they mean. Postal reminders are out dated and unnecessary. A "strawman" argument based on what? They are questions, not "an argument". Let me rewrite this then. 1 - Everyone thinks that encouraging people to register to vote is a good thing. 2 - The state making any effort to encourage people to register to vote is a good thing. 3 - Having accurate data to correctly define constituency boundaries is a good thing 4 - Using the current method of direct mailing is an acceptable method to do this even if it misses some potential voters out. 5 - Removing direct voter registration is not acceptable with no other method being put in place as it would reduce voter registration. If this is what you meant then I agree too
"Strawman Fallacy
Description: Substituting a person’s actual position or argument with a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of the position or the argument."
You made a list of statements that you want to imply I or others have said and as such you misrepresent our position.
You ignore my explicit statement saying that postal reminders are unnecessary and outdated and instead try to imply that I agree with you by once again using things i havent said. I.e straw manning. Rather than engage on my point/the crux of the matter you go around the houses trying to gain a "micro victory" by spuriously trying to "tell me what i think". Both of which you previously tried to accuse me of.
(It is worth noting that in psychology this is called projecting, a narcissistic trait commonly accompanied by gaslighting, which you accused someone of yesterday....
"projection refers to unconsciously taking unwanted emotions or traits you don’t like about yourself and attributing them to someone else.
A common example is a cheating spouse who suspects their partner is being unfaithful. Instead of acknowledging their own infidelity, they transfer, or project, this behavior onto their partner"
"Either it is a good idea to soecifically remind people to register to vote during their busyy lives or it is not. Apparently it is, but actually you would rather that it was left to chance and self-motivation and organisation. Many people do not find the registration process as "easy" as you all seem to think nor is everyone as organised as you clearly are. There is one organised method of voter registration in the UK. That is direvct mail. For some reason you seem to believe that it would make no difference whatsoever to the number of people registering to vote if it is withdrawn with no other process put in place. Either accurate voter data is important for defining constituency boundaries or it is not. If it is and direct mail registration is currently the most accurate way of doing so, then removing it will reduce accuracy. Why not actually address the points rather continually finding ways to try to be insulting and finding unrelated subjects to discuss? In fact the only thing that you have managed to communicate coherently are personal attacks on me. What an achievement. I doubt very much that you will consider your own bullying behaviour with any form of introspection, but perhaps you should at least consider it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Apparently everyone thinks that encouraging people to register to vote is a good thing. Does anyone not? Apparently the state making any effort to encourage people to register to vote is bad. Is that correct? Having accurate data to correctly define constituency boundaries is a good thing. Is that correct? Using the current method of direct mailing is not an acceptable method to do this. It does, in fact, miss a lot of people. Is that correct? Removing direct voter registration is acceptable with no other method being put in place even if that reduces registration further. Is that correct? 1 - A fair assumption, most people would want others to have the opportunity to vote. 2 - Not one person has said that. 3 - Not one person has said it is not a good thing. 4 - Not one person has said it is not an acceptable way, just questioned its necessity. 5 - Not one person has said it is ok to reduce registration. They have said they don't believe it will make a difference. following on, (I hit post before I was finished) All but one of your assertions are a strawman argument. You are deliberately avoiding what people are saying and misrepresenting what they mean. Postal reminders are out dated and unnecessary. A "strawman" argument based on what? They are questions, not "an argument". Let me rewrite this then. 1 - Everyone thinks that encouraging people to register to vote is a good thing. 2 - The state making any effort to encourage people to register to vote is a good thing. 3 - Having accurate data to correctly define constituency boundaries is a good thing 4 - Using the current method of direct mailing is an acceptable method to do this even if it misses some potential voters out. 5 - Removing direct voter registration is not acceptable with no other method being put in place as it would reduce voter registration. If this is what you meant then I agree too
"Strawman Fallacy
Description: Substituting a person’s actual position or argument with a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of the position or the argument."
You made a list of statements that you want to imply I or others have said and as such you misrepresent our position.
You ignore my explicit statement saying that postal reminders are unnecessary and outdated and instead try to imply that I agree with you by once again using things i havent said. I.e straw manning. Rather than engage on my point/the crux of the matter you go around the houses trying to gain a "micro victory" by spuriously trying to "tell me what i think". Both of which you previously tried to accuse me of.
(It is worth noting that in psychology this is called projecting, a narcissistic trait commonly accompanied by gaslighting, which you accused someone of yesterday....
"projection refers to unconsciously taking unwanted emotions or traits you don’t like about yourself and attributing them to someone else.
A common example is a cheating spouse who suspects their partner is being unfaithful. Instead of acknowledging their own infidelity, they transfer, or project, this behavior onto their partner"
Either it is a good idea to soecifically remind people to register to vote during their busyy lives or it is not.
Apparently it is, but actually you would rather that it was left to chance and self-motivation and organisation.
Many people do not find the registration process as "easy" as you all seem to think nor is everyone as organised as you clearly are.
There is one organised method of voter registration in the UK. That is direvct mail. For some reason you seem to believe that it would make no difference whatsoever to the number of people registering to vote if it is withdrawn with no other process put in place.
Either accurate voter data is important for defining constituency boundaries or it is not. If it is and direct mail registration is currently the most accurate way of doing so, then removing it will reduce accuracy.
Why not actually address the points rather continually finding ways to try to be insulting and finding unrelated subjects to discuss? In fact the only thing that you have managed to communicate coherently are personal attacks on me. What an achievement.
I doubt very much that you will consider your own bullying behaviour with any form of introspection, but perhaps you should at least consider it.
"What part of the registration are you finding difficult? How much organisation skills and self motivation does it take | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Apparently everyone thinks that encouraging people to register to vote is a good thing. Does anyone not? Apparently the state making any effort to encourage people to register to vote is bad. Is that correct? Having accurate data to correctly define constituency boundaries is a good thing. Is that correct? Using the current method of direct mailing is not an acceptable method to do this. It does, in fact, miss a lot of people. Is that correct? Removing direct voter registration is acceptable with no other method being put in place even if that reduces registration further. Is that correct? 1 - A fair assumption, most people would want others to have the opportunity to vote. 2 - Not one person has said that. 3 - Not one person has said it is not a good thing. 4 - Not one person has said it is not an acceptable way, just questioned its necessity. 5 - Not one person has said it is ok to reduce registration. They have said they don't believe it will make a difference. following on, (I hit post before I was finished) All but one of your assertions are a strawman argument. You are deliberately avoiding what people are saying and misrepresenting what they mean. Postal reminders are out dated and unnecessary. A "strawman" argument based on what? They are questions, not "an argument". Let me rewrite this then. 1 - Everyone thinks that encouraging people to register to vote is a good thing. 2 - The state making any effort to encourage people to register to vote is a good thing. 3 - Having accurate data to correctly define constituency boundaries is a good thing 4 - Using the current method of direct mailing is an acceptable method to do this even if it misses some potential voters out. 5 - Removing direct voter registration is not acceptable with no other method being put in place as it would reduce voter registration. If this is what you meant then I agree too
"Strawman Fallacy
Description: Substituting a person’s actual position or argument with a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of the position or the argument."
You made a list of statements that you want to imply I or others have said and as such you misrepresent our position.
You ignore my explicit statement saying that postal reminders are unnecessary and outdated and instead try to imply that I agree with you by once again using things i havent said. I.e straw manning. Rather than engage on my point/the crux of the matter you go around the houses trying to gain a "micro victory" by spuriously trying to "tell me what i think". Both of which you previously tried to accuse me of.
(It is worth noting that in psychology this is called projecting, a narcissistic trait commonly accompanied by gaslighting, which you accused someone of yesterday....
"projection refers to unconsciously taking unwanted emotions or traits you don’t like about yourself and attributing them to someone else.
A common example is a cheating spouse who suspects their partner is being unfaithful. Instead of acknowledging their own infidelity, they transfer, or project, this behavior onto their partner"
Either it is a good idea to soecifically remind people to register to vote during their busyy lives or it is not.
Apparently it is, but actually you would rather that it was left to chance and self-motivation and organisation.
Many people do not find the registration process as "easy" as you all seem to think nor is everyone as organised as you clearly are.
There is one organised method of voter registration in the UK. That is direvct mail. For some reason you seem to believe that it would make no difference whatsoever to the number of people registering to vote if it is withdrawn with no other process put in place.
Either accurate voter data is important for defining constituency boundaries or it is not. If it is and direct mail registration is currently the most accurate way of doing so, then removing it will reduce accuracy.
Why not actually address the points rather continually finding ways to try to be insulting and finding unrelated subjects to discuss? In fact the only thing that you have managed to communicate coherently are personal attacks on me. What an achievement.
I doubt very much that you will consider your own bullying behaviour with any form of introspection, but perhaps you should at least consider it.
"It is a bit rich of you to ask me to address the point as I have spent the majority of the thread addressing the point that you chose to avoid. You might think it bullying however I consider it making myself heard. As I said, people get more than enough reminder to vote, and to register. It is not left to chance and even the postal reminder requires motivation to complete. It also wastes masses of paper, and money. Registering to vote online requires you to answer the same questions as the paper form. Infact you can still use the paper form, it just wont be sent automatically. The people that are most likely to struggle with online registration are the elderly who are most likely to vote tory. This disproves your theory that this is an attempt by the tories to skew things in their favour. Now we can address your concerns about accurate data for boundary changes. The important information is how many voters are in each ward. If people do not register to vote then they are not a voter. Prompting the to register when they aren't really interested (and possibly wont vote) will have a negative affect on the accuracy and usefulness of the data. As for claiming a personal attack, do not try to manipulate and mislead people and you wont be held to account for it. Lets not forget that you began this with your own attack on people that you (falsely) claimed hadn't read the article and was taking things off topic. As I was the only one at that point that said I had read it then that was a personal attack on me, even if you did not address it directly. I am fully aware of my own behaviour, motivations and actions. They are carefully considered, as are my reasons and reasoning. I consider them fully justified and feel no guilt for not tolerating your behaviour. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Apparently everyone thinks that encouraging people to register to vote is a good thing. Does anyone not? Apparently the state making any effort to encourage people to register to vote is bad. Is that correct? Having accurate data to correctly define constituency boundaries is a good thing. Is that correct? Using the current method of direct mailing is not an acceptable method to do this. It does, in fact, miss a lot of people. Is that correct? Removing direct voter registration is acceptable with no other method being put in place even if that reduces registration further. Is that correct? 1 - A fair assumption, most people would want others to have the opportunity to vote. 2 - Not one person has said that. 3 - Not one person has said it is not a good thing. 4 - Not one person has said it is not an acceptable way, just questioned its necessity. 5 - Not one person has said it is ok to reduce registration. They have said they don't believe it will make a difference. following on, (I hit post before I was finished) All but one of your assertions are a strawman argument. You are deliberately avoiding what people are saying and misrepresenting what they mean. Postal reminders are out dated and unnecessary. A "strawman" argument based on what? They are questions, not "an argument". Let me rewrite this then. 1 - Everyone thinks that encouraging people to register to vote is a good thing. 2 - The state making any effort to encourage people to register to vote is a good thing. 3 - Having accurate data to correctly define constituency boundaries is a good thing 4 - Using the current method of direct mailing is an acceptable method to do this even if it misses some potential voters out. 5 - Removing direct voter registration is not acceptable with no other method being put in place as it would reduce voter registration. If this is what you meant then I agree too
"Strawman Fallacy
Description: Substituting a person’s actual position or argument with a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of the position or the argument."
You made a list of statements that you want to imply I or others have said and as such you misrepresent our position.
You ignore my explicit statement saying that postal reminders are unnecessary and outdated and instead try to imply that I agree with you by once again using things i havent said. I.e straw manning. Rather than engage on my point/the crux of the matter you go around the houses trying to gain a "micro victory" by spuriously trying to "tell me what i think". Both of which you previously tried to accuse me of.
(It is worth noting that in psychology this is called projecting, a narcissistic trait commonly accompanied by gaslighting, which you accused someone of yesterday....
"projection refers to unconsciously taking unwanted emotions or traits you don’t like about yourself and attributing them to someone else.
A common example is a cheating spouse who suspects their partner is being unfaithful. Instead of acknowledging their own infidelity, they transfer, or project, this behavior onto their partner"
Either it is a good idea to soecifically remind people to register to vote during their busyy lives or it is not.
Apparently it is, but actually you would rather that it was left to chance and self-motivation and organisation.
Many people do not find the registration process as "easy" as you all seem to think nor is everyone as organised as you clearly are.
There is one organised method of voter registration in the UK. That is direvct mail. For some reason you seem to believe that it would make no difference whatsoever to the number of people registering to vote if it is withdrawn with no other process put in place.
Either accurate voter data is important for defining constituency boundaries or it is not. If it is and direct mail registration is currently the most accurate way of doing so, then removing it will reduce accuracy.
Why not actually address the points rather continually finding ways to try to be insulting and finding unrelated subjects to discuss? In fact the only thing that you have managed to communicate coherently are personal attacks on me. What an achievement.
I doubt very much that you will consider your own bullying behaviour with any form of introspection, but perhaps you should at least consider it.
It is a bit rich of you to ask me to address the point as I have spent the majority of the thread addressing the point that you chose to avoid.
You might think it bullying however I consider it making myself heard.
As I said, people get more than enough reminder to vote, and to register. It is not left to chance and even the postal reminder requires motivation to complete. It also wastes masses of paper, and money.
Registering to vote online requires you to answer the same questions as the paper form. Infact you can still use the paper form, it just wont be sent automatically. The people that are most likely to struggle with online registration are the elderly who are most likely to vote tory. This disproves your theory that this is an attempt by the tories to skew things in their favour.
Now we can address your concerns about accurate data for boundary changes. The important information is how many voters are in each ward. If people do not register to vote then they are not a voter. Prompting the to register when they aren't really interested (and possibly wont vote) will have a negative affect on the accuracy and usefulness of the data.
As for claiming a personal attack, do not try to manipulate and mislead people and you wont be held to account for it. Lets not forget that you began this with your own attack on people that you (falsely) claimed hadn't read the article and was taking things off topic. As I was the only one at that point that said I had read it then that was a personal attack on me, even if you did not address it directly.
I am fully aware of my own behaviour, motivations and actions. They are carefully considered, as are my reasons and reasoning. I consider them fully justified and feel no guilt for not tolerating your behaviour.
"No. Saying that you hadn't read the article, which you clearly hadn't judging by your responses is not even slightly comparable with the personal abuse which you have chosen to direct towards me completely unrelated to the topic. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Apparently everyone thinks that encouraging people to register to vote is a good thing. Does anyone not? Apparently the state making any effort to encourage people to register to vote is bad. Is that correct? Having accurate data to correctly define constituency boundaries is a good thing. Is that correct? Using the current method of direct mailing is not an acceptable method to do this. It does, in fact, miss a lot of people. Is that correct? Removing direct voter registration is acceptable with no other method being put in place even if that reduces registration further. Is that correct? 1 - A fair assumption, most people would want others to have the opportunity to vote. 2 - Not one person has said that. 3 - Not one person has said it is not a good thing. 4 - Not one person has said it is not an acceptable way, just questioned its necessity. 5 - Not one person has said it is ok to reduce registration. They have said they don't believe it will make a difference. following on, (I hit post before I was finished) All but one of your assertions are a strawman argument. You are deliberately avoiding what people are saying and misrepresenting what they mean. Postal reminders are out dated and unnecessary. A "strawman" argument based on what? They are questions, not "an argument". Let me rewrite this then. 1 - Everyone thinks that encouraging people to register to vote is a good thing. 2 - The state making any effort to encourage people to register to vote is a good thing. 3 - Having accurate data to correctly define constituency boundaries is a good thing 4 - Using the current method of direct mailing is an acceptable method to do this even if it misses some potential voters out. 5 - Removing direct voter registration is not acceptable with no other method being put in place as it would reduce voter registration. If this is what you meant then I agree too
"Strawman Fallacy
Description: Substituting a person’s actual position or argument with a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of the position or the argument."
You made a list of statements that you want to imply I or others have said and as such you misrepresent our position.
You ignore my explicit statement saying that postal reminders are unnecessary and outdated and instead try to imply that I agree with you by once again using things i havent said. I.e straw manning. Rather than engage on my point/the crux of the matter you go around the houses trying to gain a "micro victory" by spuriously trying to "tell me what i think". Both of which you previously tried to accuse me of.
(It is worth noting that in psychology this is called projecting, a narcissistic trait commonly accompanied by gaslighting, which you accused someone of yesterday....
"projection refers to unconsciously taking unwanted emotions or traits you don’t like about yourself and attributing them to someone else.
A common example is a cheating spouse who suspects their partner is being unfaithful. Instead of acknowledging their own infidelity, they transfer, or project, this behavior onto their partner"
Either it is a good idea to soecifically remind people to register to vote during their busyy lives or it is not.
Apparently it is, but actually you would rather that it was left to chance and self-motivation and organisation.
Many people do not find the registration process as "easy" as you all seem to think nor is everyone as organised as you clearly are.
There is one organised method of voter registration in the UK. That is direvct mail. For some reason you seem to believe that it would make no difference whatsoever to the number of people registering to vote if it is withdrawn with no other process put in place.
Either accurate voter data is important for defining constituency boundaries or it is not. If it is and direct mail registration is currently the most accurate way of doing so, then removing it will reduce accuracy.
Why not actually address the points rather continually finding ways to try to be insulting and finding unrelated subjects to discuss? In fact the only thing that you have managed to communicate coherently are personal attacks on me. What an achievement.
I doubt very much that you will consider your own bullying behaviour with any form of introspection, but perhaps you should at least consider it.
It is a bit rich of you to ask me to address the point as I have spent the majority of the thread addressing the point that you chose to avoid.
You might think it bullying however I consider it making myself heard.
As I said, people get more than enough reminder to vote, and to register. It is not left to chance and even the postal reminder requires motivation to complete. It also wastes masses of paper, and money.
Registering to vote online requires you to answer the same questions as the paper form. Infact you can still use the paper form, it just wont be sent automatically. The people that are most likely to struggle with online registration are the elderly who are most likely to vote tory. This disproves your theory that this is an attempt by the tories to skew things in their favour.
Now we can address your concerns about accurate data for boundary changes. The important information is how many voters are in each ward. If people do not register to vote then they are not a voter. Prompting the to register when they aren't really interested (and possibly wont vote) will have a negative affect on the accuracy and usefulness of the data.
As for claiming a personal attack, do not try to manipulate and mislead people and you wont be held to account for it. Lets not forget that you began this with your own attack on people that you (falsely) claimed hadn't read the article and was taking things off topic. As I was the only one at that point that said I had read it then that was a personal attack on me, even if you did not address it directly.
I am fully aware of my own behaviour, motivations and actions. They are carefully considered, as are my reasons and reasoning. I consider them fully justified and feel no guilt for not tolerating your behaviour.
No.
Saying that you hadn't read the article, which you clearly hadn't judging by your responses is not even slightly comparable with the personal abuse which you have chosen to direct towards me completely unrelated to the topic."Like I said, don't try to manipulate and mislead and you wont be held to account for it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Edited as a civil conversation. It is apparent how much has been written on-topic and what information is available to understand each others position: Apparently everyone thinks that encouraging people to register to vote is a good thing. Does anyone not? Apparently the state making any effort to encourage people to register to vote is bad. Is that correct? Having accurate data to correctly define constituency boundaries is a good thing. Is that correct? Using the current method of direct mailing is not an acceptable method to do this. It does, in fact, miss a lot of people. Is that correct? Removing direct voter registration is acceptable with no other method being put in place even if that reduces registration further. Is that correct? 1 - A fair assumption, most people would want others to have the opportunity to vote. 2 - Not one person has said that. 3 - Not one person has said it is not a good thing. 4 - Not one person has said it is not an acceptable way, just questioned its necessity. 5 - Not one person has said it is ok to reduce registration. They have said they don't believe it will make a difference. following on, (I hit post before I was finished) All but one of your assertions are a strawman argument. You are deliberately avoiding what people are saying and misrepresenting what they mean. Postal reminders are out dated and unnecessary. A "strawman" argument based on what? They are questions, not "an argument". Let me rewrite this then. 1 - Everyone thinks that encouraging people to register to vote is a good thing. 2 - The state making any effort to encourage people to register to vote is a good thing. 3 - Having accurate data to correctly define constituency boundaries is a good thing 4 - Using the current method of direct mailing is an acceptable method to do this even if it misses some potential voters out. 5 - Removing direct voter registration is not acceptable with no other method being put in place as it would reduce voter registration. If this is what you meant then I agree too
You ignore my explicit statement saying that postal reminders are unnecessary.
Either it is a good idea to soecifically remind people to register to vote during their busyy lives or it is not.
Apparently it is, but actually you would rather that it was left to chance and self-motivation and organisation.
Many people do not find the registration process as "easy" as you all seem to think nor is everyone as organised as you clearly are.
There is one organised method of voter registration in the UK. That is direct mail. For some reason you seem to believe that it would make no difference whatsoever to the number of people registering to vote if it is withdrawn with no other process put in place.
Either accurate voter data is important for defining constituency boundaries or it is not. If it is and direct mail registration is currently the most accurate way of doing so, then removing it will reduce accuracy.
As I said, people get more than enough reminder to vote, and to register. It is not left to chance and even the postal reminder requires motivation to complete. It also wastes masses of paper, and money.
Registering to vote online requires you to answer the same questions as the paper form. Infact you can still use the paper form, it just wont be sent automatically. The people that are most likely to struggle with online registration are the elderly who are most likely to vote tory. This disproves your theory that this is an attempt by the tories to skew things in their favour.
Now we can address your concerns about accurate data for boundary changes. The important information is how many voters are in each ward. If people do not register to vote then they are not a voter. Prompting the to register when they aren't really interested (and possibly wont vote) will have a negative affect on the accuracy and usefulness of the data.
"You do not actually appear to think that there is any merit in encouraging voter registration. You have stated, clearly enough, that no effort should be made to achieve this either in paper registration or in any other way. Do not, in that case, claim that you think that maximising voter registration is something that you support. Accurate constituency boundaries are based on numbers of eligible voters, not those registered to vote at a given point in time. Hence there is a need to encourage people to register to vote especially if they are highly mobile. The Boundary Commissions were originally tasked with setting out new constituencies for 600 seats rather than the current 650. Recommendations were delivered for 2018. The Government have now shelved these and will redraw constituencies for the 650 seats but remove any system for encouraging voter registration to get as accurate a number as possible. There will also now be no Parliamentary oversight of this process. A Cabinet Office paper gives this information: "Research has identified a number of specific groups of elector types in which individuals are more likely to be unregistered now and/or less likely to be confirmed. Previously, Electoral Commission research has highlighted seven groups where rates of registration fall below that of the average rate of the UK: social renters (78 per cent registered); BME groups (77 per cent); Irish and Commonwealth national (68 per cent); private renters (56 per cent); young people, 19-24 years (56 per cent); and young people, 17-18 years (55 per cent). Additional research by the Commission has suggested as many as 22 per cent of students will not be registered to vote, giving them a registration rate similar to that of social renters." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If people cannot be bothered to register to vote the they cannot moan about it. It’s real easy takes less than 5 mins online and the argument about not having access is bollux you can even get to an Internet cafe to do it Free wifi at library,s too there really is no excuse not to register if you want to.Nice try with your usual Boris bashing posts but you really haven't thought this one through.
Determinedly focusing on just one thing.
Not read the article then? Not responding to the direct quotes either?
Not a surprise Yes i read it and have replied but i will repeat myself,there is nothing stopping people registering to vote.If people cant be bothered that is their problem not the governments,now if it was compulsory to vote like in Austria i would agree it would be up to the government to make sure everyone was registered but its not.If some lazy fuckers cant get off their arses (in fact they dont need to you can do it online) thats their problem not the governments.
Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?
Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?
Why so difficult to reply directly to a direct question? Governments are always redrawing bounderies whatever party and reducing mp,s can only be a good thing.Wish they could do it with the house of lords too.Reduced voter engagement is the voters fault its not hard to register.I dont know what data they are using do you? but would guess the last electoral roll which is pretty recent data as we have only recently had an election.
MP numbers are not being reduced.
Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data a good thing?
Is no Parliamentary oversight of this process a good thing?
Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?
Why so difficult to answer directly? Yes/no would actually be fine First tell me how voter engagement is being reduced?When an election is called everyone has the opportunity to register to vote yes or no?/.If you boundary has been redrawn does that stop you from registering to voter yes or no? Do you think that local councils should beable to access your data from various government sources yes or no?.The data protection tin foil hats would be having a field day ffs.So please explain how this is going to affect anyone who wants to vote in the next council or general election as it seems to me you are convinced that 9 million people will not be eligible to vote which i would say in the uk is illegal and would cause a law suit and a void election.
What is the purpose of redrawing boundaries?
If you do not have the correct information for who is in a constituency now, how do you redraw it?
The mailing to every residence is absolutely the most accurate method of measuring voter numbers, not inferring from other data.
I wrote nothing about not being eligible to vote.
Surely there are rules on size of each constituency which limits possible boundary changes. Is it not a commission that works on such things? Who stops people registering to vote? If they want to vote its perfectly accessible for all and more than well publicized
The Boundary Comission works to the terms that it is given and uses the data that it had available.
If it has less accurate data available it can less accurately draw boundaries.
Does that make logical sense?
I said nothing about people being prevented from voting.
I think that any process that makes it more likely that someone to vote is preferable for one that does not.
What do you think?
So they work within set parameters?
What data is inaccurate before they decide on boundaries?
Whatever constituency you happen to fall in it does not stop you registering. Even if yours changes you just register in your new one. If in doubt check.
Why does it affect Labour differently to other parties
Does it make logical sense that the most accurate voter data now will provide the best information for redrawing boundaries?
That's a completely neutral question. You must be able to answer that directly.
If you are not recording 9 million voters then you cannot draw boundaries correctly right?
I said nothing anywhere about being prevented from voting.
Once again, I think that any process that makes it more likely that someone to vote is preferable for one that does not.
What do you think?
I didn't mention Labour. I said that reduction in the votes of the young or the poor tended to favour the Tory party.
Do you disagree?
I did not say accurate data is not good. I asked what data is inaccurate BEFORE the boundary changes. So are you saying 9 million are not recorded before the boundary changes or will be after?. It's the individuals responsibility to make sure they are registered. If they do that then there is no problem. If they don't do it then it's down to them. Why do you say the poor and young will be affected more? Yes I disagree with you as I believe people have to take responsibility of their actions or in actions
There is a separate discussion about people's responsibility to register to vote if they wish and even distribution of population within a constituency.
You and I disagree over it being an inherent good that more people should vote. Fine.
Yes, several million people could be missing from voter registration. That is, undoubtedly, a maximum. That is because the paper system catches a lot of people who may otherwise not get around to registration because it is not an immediate priority and can easily be put off and forgotten.
If you don't believe that, then again how you view normal behaviour and priorities, particularly of younger people, is very different to my own.
The paper system currently maximises the accuracy of electoral data. Without replacing or supplementing this process then the data will be less accurate.
Where did I say it's not a good thing more people should vote? Where I disagree is I believe people need to take responsibility and not leave such things to the state. As many have said the news of elections are unavoidable. If all these people you say are being left out took a few minutes to register and vote then we would have better turnouts which I welcome
So you do think it is a good thing that more people should vote?
You haven't actually responded to that question have you?
I think any opportunity the state or any other organisation provides to encourage this is good.
You do not. You call it "taking responsibility" but you disagree with money being spent specifically to encourage this.
The fact that this direct mailing also provides the most accurate measure of voter location is also of no importance to you with respect to setting constituency boundaries.
Got it
Yes of course and I have never said otherwise despite your false claims.
Where we disagree is how that should be be achieved.
At what point did I mention money? Yet again its you making things up.
So to directly answer your question NO I do not think its up to the state I think people should take responsibility. I they want to vote register or check the register and vote. The elections are very well covered so no excuse for people who actually want to vote making sure they can
GOT IT
So you do agree that the government should take all necessary steps to both encourage voting and accurately assess the numbers of people eligible vote so as to accurately draw constituency boundaries?
We do not disagree at all in that case.
I apologise for any misunderstanding
I think you need to 're read my last post as I clearly said NO I don't think its up to the state instead it is people's responsibility to register or check the register and vote. The end goal of people voting we seem to agree. How we get there we disagree.
Right. So you do not think that as many people as possible should be encouraged to vote?
I have no idea of your opinion on achieving the most accurate data for drawing constituency boundaries.
If this accidentally means that the state encourages people to register to vote is that a good or a bad thing?
I can't help but be confused by what yoga re actually saying."If you can't understand what I have said already I'm not sure you ever will. It would help if you stopped making false claims of what I said. It seems its not just me you do this to. Let me say once again NO I do not think the state should be responsible for people registering to vote I think its people's responsibility. It's not hard and very well publicised | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If people cannot be bothered to register to vote the they cannot moan about it. It’s real easy takes less than 5 mins online and the argument about not having access is bollux you can even get to an Internet cafe to do it Free wifi at library,s too there really is no excuse not to register if you want to.Nice try with your usual Boris bashing posts but you really haven't thought this one through.
Determinedly focusing on just one thing.
Not read the article then? Not responding to the direct quotes either?
Not a surprise Yes i read it and have replied but i will repeat myself,there is nothing stopping people registering to vote.If people cant be bothered that is their problem not the governments,now if it was compulsory to vote like in Austria i would agree it would be up to the government to make sure everyone was registered but its not.If some lazy fuckers cant get off their arses (in fact they dont need to you can do it online) thats their problem not the governments.
Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?
Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?
Why so difficult to reply directly to a direct question? Governments are always redrawing bounderies whatever party and reducing mp,s can only be a good thing.Wish they could do it with the house of lords too.Reduced voter engagement is the voters fault its not hard to register.I dont know what data they are using do you? but would guess the last electoral roll which is pretty recent data as we have only recently had an election.
MP numbers are not being reduced.
Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data a good thing?
Is no Parliamentary oversight of this process a good thing?
Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?
Why so difficult to answer directly? Yes/no would actually be fine First tell me how voter engagement is being reduced?When an election is called everyone has the opportunity to register to vote yes or no?/.If you boundary has been redrawn does that stop you from registering to voter yes or no? Do you think that local councils should beable to access your data from various government sources yes or no?.The data protection tin foil hats would be having a field day ffs.So please explain how this is going to affect anyone who wants to vote in the next council or general election as it seems to me you are convinced that 9 million people will not be eligible to vote which i would say in the uk is illegal and would cause a law suit and a void election.
What is the purpose of redrawing boundaries?
If you do not have the correct information for who is in a constituency now, how do you redraw it?
The mailing to every residence is absolutely the most accurate method of measuring voter numbers, not inferring from other data.
I wrote nothing about not being eligible to vote.
Surely there are rules on size of each constituency which limits possible boundary changes. Is it not a commission that works on such things? Who stops people registering to vote? If they want to vote its perfectly accessible for all and more than well publicized
The Boundary Comission works to the terms that it is given and uses the data that it had available.
If it has less accurate data available it can less accurately draw boundaries.
Does that make logical sense?
I said nothing about people being prevented from voting.
I think that any process that makes it more likely that someone to vote is preferable for one that does not.
What do you think?
So they work within set parameters?
What data is inaccurate before they decide on boundaries?
Whatever constituency you happen to fall in it does not stop you registering. Even if yours changes you just register in your new one. If in doubt check.
Why does it affect Labour differently to other parties
Does it make logical sense that the most accurate voter data now will provide the best information for redrawing boundaries?
That's a completely neutral question. You must be able to answer that directly.
If you are not recording 9 million voters then you cannot draw boundaries correctly right?
I said nothing anywhere about being prevented from voting.
Once again, I think that any process that makes it more likely that someone to vote is preferable for one that does not.
What do you think?
I didn't mention Labour. I said that reduction in the votes of the young or the poor tended to favour the Tory party.
Do you disagree?
I did not say accurate data is not good. I asked what data is inaccurate BEFORE the boundary changes. So are you saying 9 million are not recorded before the boundary changes or will be after?. It's the individuals responsibility to make sure they are registered. If they do that then there is no problem. If they don't do it then it's down to them. Why do you say the poor and young will be affected more? Yes I disagree with you as I believe people have to take responsibility of their actions or in actions
There is a separate discussion about people's responsibility to register to vote if they wish and even distribution of population within a constituency.
You and I disagree over it being an inherent good that more people should vote. Fine.
Yes, several million people could be missing from voter registration. That is, undoubtedly, a maximum. That is because the paper system catches a lot of people who may otherwise not get around to registration because it is not an immediate priority and can easily be put off and forgotten.
If you don't believe that, then again how you view normal behaviour and priorities, particularly of younger people, is very different to my own.
The paper system currently maximises the accuracy of electoral data. Without replacing or supplementing this process then the data will be less accurate.
Where did I say it's not a good thing more people should vote? Where I disagree is I believe people need to take responsibility and not leave such things to the state. As many have said the news of elections are unavoidable. If all these people you say are being left out took a few minutes to register and vote then we would have better turnouts which I welcome
So you do think it is a good thing that more people should vote?
You haven't actually responded to that question have you?
I think any opportunity the state or any other organisation provides to encourage this is good.
You do not. You call it "taking responsibility" but you disagree with money being spent specifically to encourage this.
The fact that this direct mailing also provides the most accurate measure of voter location is also of no importance to you with respect to setting constituency boundaries.
Got it
Yes of course and I have never said otherwise despite your false claims.
Where we disagree is how that should be be achieved.
At what point did I mention money? Yet again its you making things up.
So to directly answer your question NO I do not think its up to the state I think people should take responsibility. I they want to vote register or check the register and vote. The elections are very well covered so no excuse for people who actually want to vote making sure they can
GOT IT
So you do agree that the government should take all necessary steps to both encourage voting and accurately assess the numbers of people eligible vote so as to accurately draw constituency boundaries?
We do not disagree at all in that case.
I apologise for any misunderstanding
I think you need to 're read my last post as I clearly said NO I don't think its up to the state instead it is people's responsibility to register or check the register and vote. The end goal of people voting we seem to agree. How we get there we disagree.
Right. So you do not think that as many people as possible should be encouraged to vote?
I have no idea of your opinion on achieving the most accurate data for drawing constituency boundaries.
If this accidentally means that the state encourages people to register to vote is that a good or a bad thing?
I can't help but be confused by what yoga re actually saying.
If you can't understand what I have said already I'm not sure you ever will. It would help if you stopped making false claims of what I said. It seems its not just me you do this to. Let me say once again NO I do not think the state should be responsible for people registering to vote I think its people's responsibility. It's not hard and very well publicised"How can you claim to support maximise voter registration and voting but not want it to be encouraged it in any way? Look at my last post. You also have no interest in the accuracy of drawing new constituency boundaries in a fair way either I guess... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" It means that councils will not check registration every year for each property which encourages voting as it prompts people to register. The young and poor are lost likely to move more regularly and are also less likely to be Conservative voters. The Government have dropped the reduction in the number of constituencies." Isn't it the voters responsibility to make sure they are eligible to vote and on the electoral roll? I think councils have enough to do without wasting their budget on someone doing this. If people don't check they are registered, what are the chances of them voting? Maybe they should address double voting from students and other voting fraud. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" It means that councils will not check registration every year for each property which encourages voting as it prompts people to register. The young and poor are lost likely to move more regularly and are also less likely to be Conservative voters. The Government have dropped the reduction in the number of constituencies. Isn't it the voters responsibility to make sure they are eligible to vote and on the electoral roll? I think councils have enough to do without wasting their budget on someone doing this. If people don't check they are registered, what are the chances of them voting? Maybe they should address double voting from students and other voting fraud." Is encouraging people to vote a good or a bad thing? If not then who cares? If yes, how do you achieve it? Should new Parliamentary constituency boundaries be drawn with accurate or inaccurate data? If accurate, how do you achieve it? 'Accurate constituency boundaries are based on numbers of eligible voters, not those registered to vote at a given point in time. Hence there is a need to encourage people to register to vote especially if they are highly mobile. The Boundary Commissions were originally tasked with setting out new constituencies for 600 seats rather than the current 650. Recommendations were delivered for 2018. The Government have now shelved these and will redraw constituencies for the 650 seats but remove any system for encouraging voter registration to get as accurate a number as possible. There will also now be no Parliamentary oversight of this process. A Cabinet Office paper gives this information: "Research has identified a number of specific groups of elector types in which individuals are more likely to be unregistered now and/or less likely to be confirmed. Previously, Electoral Commission research has highlighted seven groups where rates of registration fall below that of the average rate of the UK: social renters (78 per cent registered); BME groups (77 per cent); Irish and Commonwealth national (68 per cent); private renters (56 per cent); young people, 19-24 years (56 per cent); and young people, 17-18 years (55 per cent). Additional research by the Commission has suggested as many as 22 per cent of students will not be registered to vote, giving them a registration rate similar to that of social renters."' | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If people cannot be bothered to register to vote the they cannot moan about it. It’s real easy takes less than 5 mins online and the argument about not having access is bollux you can even get to an Internet cafe to do it Free wifi at library,s too there really is no excuse not to register if you want to.Nice try with your usual Boris bashing posts but you really haven't thought this one through.
Determinedly focusing on just one thing.
Not read the article then? Not responding to the direct quotes either?
Not a surprise Yes i read it and have replied but i will repeat myself,there is nothing stopping people registering to vote.If people cant be bothered that is their problem not the governments,now if it was compulsory to vote like in Austria i would agree it would be up to the government to make sure everyone was registered but its not.If some lazy fuckers cant get off their arses (in fact they dont need to you can do it online) thats their problem not the governments.
Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?
Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?
Why so difficult to reply directly to a direct question? Governments are always redrawing bounderies whatever party and reducing mp,s can only be a good thing.Wish they could do it with the house of lords too.Reduced voter engagement is the voters fault its not hard to register.I dont know what data they are using do you? but would guess the last electoral roll which is pretty recent data as we have only recently had an election.
MP numbers are not being reduced.
Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data a good thing?
Is no Parliamentary oversight of this process a good thing?
Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?
Why so difficult to answer directly? Yes/no would actually be fine First tell me how voter engagement is being reduced?When an election is called everyone has the opportunity to register to vote yes or no?/.If you boundary has been redrawn does that stop you from registering to voter yes or no? Do you think that local councils should beable to access your data from various government sources yes or no?.The data protection tin foil hats would be having a field day ffs.So please explain how this is going to affect anyone who wants to vote in the next council or general election as it seems to me you are convinced that 9 million people will not be eligible to vote which i would say in the uk is illegal and would cause a law suit and a void election.
What is the purpose of redrawing boundaries?
If you do not have the correct information for who is in a constituency now, how do you redraw it?
The mailing to every residence is absolutely the most accurate method of measuring voter numbers, not inferring from other data.
I wrote nothing about not being eligible to vote.
Surely there are rules on size of each constituency which limits possible boundary changes. Is it not a commission that works on such things? Who stops people registering to vote? If they want to vote its perfectly accessible for all and more than well publicized
The Boundary Comission works to the terms that it is given and uses the data that it had available.
If it has less accurate data available it can less accurately draw boundaries.
Does that make logical sense?
I said nothing about people being prevented from voting.
I think that any process that makes it more likely that someone to vote is preferable for one that does not.
What do you think?
So they work within set parameters?
What data is inaccurate before they decide on boundaries?
Whatever constituency you happen to fall in it does not stop you registering. Even if yours changes you just register in your new one. If in doubt check.
Why does it affect Labour differently to other parties
Does it make logical sense that the most accurate voter data now will provide the best information for redrawing boundaries?
That's a completely neutral question. You must be able to answer that directly.
If you are not recording 9 million voters then you cannot draw boundaries correctly right?
I said nothing anywhere about being prevented from voting.
Once again, I think that any process that makes it more likely that someone to vote is preferable for one that does not.
What do you think?
I didn't mention Labour. I said that reduction in the votes of the young or the poor tended to favour the Tory party.
Do you disagree?
I did not say accurate data is not good. I asked what data is inaccurate BEFORE the boundary changes. So are you saying 9 million are not recorded before the boundary changes or will be after?. It's the individuals responsibility to make sure they are registered. If they do that then there is no problem. If they don't do it then it's down to them. Why do you say the poor and young will be affected more? Yes I disagree with you as I believe people have to take responsibility of their actions or in actions
There is a separate discussion about people's responsibility to register to vote if they wish and even distribution of population within a constituency.
You and I disagree over it being an inherent good that more people should vote. Fine.
Yes, several million people could be missing from voter registration. That is, undoubtedly, a maximum. That is because the paper system catches a lot of people who may otherwise not get around to registration because it is not an immediate priority and can easily be put off and forgotten.
If you don't believe that, then again how you view normal behaviour and priorities, particularly of younger people, is very different to my own.
The paper system currently maximises the accuracy of electoral data. Without replacing or supplementing this process then the data will be less accurate.
Where did I say it's not a good thing more people should vote? Where I disagree is I believe people need to take responsibility and not leave such things to the state. As many have said the news of elections are unavoidable. If all these people you say are being left out took a few minutes to register and vote then we would have better turnouts which I welcome
So you do think it is a good thing that more people should vote?
You haven't actually responded to that question have you?
I think any opportunity the state or any other organisation provides to encourage this is good.
You do not. You call it "taking responsibility" but you disagree with money being spent specifically to encourage this.
The fact that this direct mailing also provides the most accurate measure of voter location is also of no importance to you with respect to setting constituency boundaries.
Got it
Yes of course and I have never said otherwise despite your false claims.
Where we disagree is how that should be be achieved.
At what point did I mention money? Yet again its you making things up.
So to directly answer your question NO I do not think its up to the state I think people should take responsibility. I they want to vote register or check the register and vote. The elections are very well covered so no excuse for people who actually want to vote making sure they can
GOT IT
So you do agree that the government should take all necessary steps to both encourage voting and accurately assess the numbers of people eligible vote so as to accurately draw constituency boundaries?
We do not disagree at all in that case.
I apologise for any misunderstanding
I think you need to 're read my last post as I clearly said NO I don't think its up to the state instead it is people's responsibility to register or check the register and vote. The end goal of people voting we seem to agree. How we get there we disagree.
Right. So you do not think that as many people as possible should be encouraged to vote?
I have no idea of your opinion on achieving the most accurate data for drawing constituency boundaries.
If this accidentally means that the state encourages people to register to vote is that a good or a bad thing?
I can't help but be confused by what yoga re actually saying.
If you can't understand what I have said already I'm not sure you ever will. It would help if you stopped making false claims of what I said. It seems its not just me you do this to. Let me say once again NO I do not think the state should be responsible for people registering to vote I think its people's responsibility. It's not hard and very well publicised
How can you claim to support maximise voter registration and voting but not want it to be encouraged it in any way?
Look at my last post.
You also have no interest in the accuracy of drawing new constituency boundaries in a fair way either I guess..."I am giving my opinion on a forum and that is I think it is not up to the state to make sure people register its up to the people. If these people are keen to vote what more incentive do they need. If they can't be bothered its not the state's fault | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Edited as a civil conversation. It is apparent how much has been written on-topic and what information is available to understand each others position: Apparently everyone thinks that encouraging people to register to vote is a good thing. Does anyone not? Apparently the state making any effort to encourage people to register to vote is bad. Is that correct? Having accurate data to correctly define constituency boundaries is a good thing. Is that correct? Using the current method of direct mailing is not an acceptable method to do this. It does, in fact, miss a lot of people. Is that correct? Removing direct voter registration is acceptable with no other method being put in place even if that reduces registration further. Is that correct? 1 - A fair assumption, most people would want others to have the opportunity to vote. 2 - Not one person has said that. 3 - Not one person has said it is not a good thing. 4 - Not one person has said it is not an acceptable way, just questioned its necessity. 5 - Not one person has said it is ok to reduce registration. They have said they don't believe it will make a difference. following on, (I hit post before I was finished) All but one of your assertions are a strawman argument. You are deliberately avoiding what people are saying and misrepresenting what they mean. Postal reminders are out dated and unnecessary. A "strawman" argument based on what? They are questions, not "an argument". Let me rewrite this then. 1 - Everyone thinks that encouraging people to register to vote is a good thing. 2 - The state making any effort to encourage people to register to vote is a good thing. 3 - Having accurate data to correctly define constituency boundaries is a good thing 4 - Using the current method of direct mailing is an acceptable method to do this even if it misses some potential voters out. 5 - Removing direct voter registration is not acceptable with no other method being put in place as it would reduce voter registration. If this is what you meant then I agree too
You ignore my explicit statement saying that postal reminders are unnecessary.
Either it is a good idea to soecifically remind people to register to vote during their busyy lives or it is not.
Apparently it is, but actually you would rather that it was left to chance and self-motivation and organisation.
Many people do not find the registration process as "easy" as you all seem to think nor is everyone as organised as you clearly are.
There is one organised method of voter registration in the UK. That is direct mail. For some reason you seem to believe that it would make no difference whatsoever to the number of people registering to vote if it is withdrawn with no other process put in place.
Either accurate voter data is important for defining constituency boundaries or it is not. If it is and direct mail registration is currently the most accurate way of doing so, then removing it will reduce accuracy.
As I said, people get more than enough reminder to vote, and to register. It is not left to chance and even the postal reminder requires motivation to complete. It also wastes masses of paper, and money.
Registering to vote online requires you to answer the same questions as the paper form. Infact you can still use the paper form, it just wont be sent automatically. The people that are most likely to struggle with online registration are the elderly who are most likely to vote tory. This disproves your theory that this is an attempt by the tories to skew things in their favour.
Now we can address your concerns about accurate data for boundary changes. The important information is how many voters are in each ward. If people do not register to vote then they are not a voter. Prompting the to register when they aren't really interested (and possibly wont vote) will have a negative affect on the accuracy and usefulness of the data.
You do not actually appear to think that there is any merit in encouraging voter registration. You have stated, clearly enough, that no effort should be made to achieve this either in paper registration or in any other way.
Do not, in that case, claim that you think that maximising voter registration is something that you support.
Accurate constituency boundaries are based on numbers of eligible voters, not those registered to vote at a given point in time. Hence there is a need to encourage people to register to vote especially if they are highly mobile.
The Boundary Commissions were originally tasked with setting out new constituencies for 600 seats rather than the current 650. Recommendations were delivered for 2018.
The Government have now shelved these and will redraw constituencies for the 650 seats but remove any system for encouraging voter registration to get as accurate a number as possible.
There will also now be no Parliamentary oversight of this process.
A Cabinet Office paper gives this information:
"Research has identified a number of specific groups of elector types in which
individuals are more likely to be unregistered now and/or less likely to be confirmed.
Previously, Electoral Commission research has highlighted seven groups where rates
of registration fall below that of the average rate of the UK: social renters (78 per cent
registered); BME groups (77 per cent); Irish and Commonwealth national (68 per
cent); private renters (56 per cent); young people, 19-24 years (56 per cent); and
young people, 17-18 years (55 per cent).
Additional research by the Commission has suggested as many as 22 per cent of students will not be registered to vote,
giving them a registration rate similar to that of social renters.""Again with the strawmanning, mis representing and telling me what I think. You just can`t help yourself can you? I never said that no effort should be made to encourage voter registration. I never said that maximising voter registration is something I support. What I did say is everyone should have the opportunity to vote and be encouraged, I also said that not voting is a choice and a postal reminder will not change that. As for accuracy, why should people that don't vote be included in the calculations? Simple answer is labour want them included because it makes each individual vote in each ward more powerful. If the catchment area of a ward contains 100,00 people, for example, but only 50,000 vote each vote is carrying twice the power. Basically recruiting the ones that don't want to vote, by proxy. As it is mainly non tory wards with the lowest turnout it disproportionately benefits them. I guess it is easier for labour to blame the bogey men than look at why people aren't voting for them. But of course, It must the tories fault or maybe just coincidence that voter registration has dropped in the period that MANY labour voters turned their back on them. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Edited as a civil conversation. It is apparent how much has been written on-topic and what information is available to understand each others position: Apparently everyone thinks that encouraging people to register to vote is a good thing. Does anyone not? Apparently the state making any effort to encourage people to register to vote is bad. Is that correct? Having accurate data to correctly define constituency boundaries is a good thing. Is that correct? Using the current method of direct mailing is not an acceptable method to do this. It does, in fact, miss a lot of people. Is that correct? Removing direct voter registration is acceptable with no other method being put in place even if that reduces registration further. Is that correct? 1 - A fair assumption, most people would want others to have the opportunity to vote. 2 - Not one person has said that. 3 - Not one person has said it is not a good thing. 4 - Not one person has said it is not an acceptable way, just questioned its necessity. 5 - Not one person has said it is ok to reduce registration. They have said they don't believe it will make a difference. following on, (I hit post before I was finished) Postal reminders are out dated and unnecessary. A "strawman" argument based on what? They are questions, not "an argument". Let me rewrite this then. 1 - Everyone thinks that encouraging people to register to vote is a good thing. 2 - The state making any effort to encourage people to register to vote is a good thing. 3 - Having accurate data to correctly define constituency boundaries is a good thing 4 - Using the current method of direct mailing is an acceptable method to do this even if it misses some potential voters out. 5 - Removing direct voter registration is not acceptable with no other method being put in place as it would reduce voter registration. If this is what you meant then I agree too
You ignore my explicit statement saying that postal reminders are unnecessary.
Either it is a good idea to soecifically remind people to register to vote during their busyy lives or it is not.
Apparently it is, but actually you would rather that it was left to chance and self-motivation and organisation.
Many people do not find the registration process as "easy" as you all seem to think nor is everyone as organised as you clearly are.
There is one organised method of voter registration in the UK. That is direct mail. For some reason you seem to believe that it would make no difference whatsoever to the number of people registering to vote if it is withdrawn with no other process put in place.
Either accurate voter data is important for defining constituency boundaries or it is not. If it is and direct mail registration is currently the most accurate way of doing so, then removing it will reduce accuracy.
As I said, people get more than enough reminder to vote, and to register. It is not left to chance and even the postal reminder requires motivation to complete. It also wastes masses of paper, and money.
Registering to vote online requires you to answer the same questions as the paper form. Infact you can still use the paper form, it just wont be sent automatically. The people that are most likely to struggle with online registration are the elderly who are most likely to vote tory. This disproves your theory that this is an attempt by the tories to skew things in their favour.
Now we can address your concerns about accurate data for boundary changes. The important information is how many voters are in each ward. If people do not register to vote then they are not a voter. Prompting the to register when they aren't really interested (and possibly wont vote) will have a negative affect on the accuracy and usefulness of the data.
You do not actually appear to think that there is any merit in encouraging voter registration. You have stated, clearly enough, that no effort should be made to achieve this either in paper registration or in any other way.
Do not, in that case, claim that you think that maximising voter registration is something that you support.
Accurate constituency boundaries are based on numbers of eligible voters, not those registered to vote at a given point in time. Hence there is a need to encourage people to register to vote especially if they are highly mobile.
The Boundary Commissions were originally tasked with setting out new constituencies for 600 seats rather than the current 650. Recommendations were delivered for 2018.
The Government have now shelved these and will redraw constituencies for the 650 seats but remove any system for encouraging voter registration to get as accurate a number as possible.
There will also now be no Parliamentary oversight of this process.
A Cabinet Office paper gives this information:
"Research has identified a number of specific groups of elector types in which
individuals are more likely to be unregistered now and/or less likely to be confirmed.
Previously, Electoral Commission research has highlighted seven groups where rates
of registration fall below that of the average rate of the UK: social renters (78 per cent
registered); BME groups (77 per cent); Irish and Commonwealth national (68 per
cent); private renters (56 per cent); young people, 19-24 years (56 per cent); and
young people, 17-18 years (55 per cent).
Additional research by the Commission has suggested as many as 22 per cent of students will not be registered to vote,
giving them a registration rate similar to that of social renters."
Again with the strawmanning, mis representing and telling me what I think. You just can`t help yourself can you?
I never said that no effort should be made to encourage voter registration.
I never said that maximising voter registration is something I support.
What I did say is everyone should have the opportunity to vote and be encouraged, I also said that not voting is a choice and a postal reminder will not change that.
As for accuracy, why should people that don't vote be included in the calculations? Simple answer is labour want them included because it makes each individual vote in each ward more powerful. If the catchment area of a ward contains 100,00 people, for example, but only 50,000 vote each vote is carrying twice the power. Basically recruiting the ones that don't want to vote, by proxy. As it is mainly non tory wards with the lowest turnout it disproportionately benefits them. I guess it is easier for labour to blame the bogey men than look at why people aren't voting for them.
But of course, It must the tories fault or maybe just coincidence that voter registration has dropped in the period that MANY labour voters turned their back on them. "Well, had you read the article, you would see that it is also the Electoral Commission who are critical of this government's behaviour. So we have now come to you not wanting to encourage people to vote. Only those who can be bothered too in the abusive, ugly population of today. Participation in democracy with the state not interested in engaging its population. You include electors, not voters specifically to prevent unfair representation. Unregistered but eligible voters are not considered when drawing up constituency boundaries – even though they could register at any moment. Also the boundaries will only be drawn based on the last general election, not the latest location of the population. According to the Economic and Social Research Council: "Labour has traditionally benefited substantially from variations in constituency electorates, winning seats on average smaller than the Conservatives’. Equalisation of electorates removes this pro-Labour advantage and widens the gap between the two." So also making no effort to engage younger and poorer voters will further exacerbate this effect. Is there a reason that you ignored the data from the Cabinet Office report? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If people cannot be bothered to register to vote the they cannot moan about it. It’s real easy takes less than 5 mins online and the argument about not having access is bollux you can even get to an Internet cafe to do it Free wifi at library,s too there really is no excuse not to register if you want to.Nice try with your usual Boris bashing posts but you really haven't thought this one through.
Determinedly focusing on just one thing.
Not read the article then? Not responding to the direct quotes either?
Not a surprise Yes i read it and have replied but i will repeat myself,there is nothing stopping people registering to vote.If people cant be bothered that is their problem not the governments,now if it was compulsory to vote like in Austria i would agree it would be up to the government to make sure everyone was registered but its not.If some lazy fuckers cant get off their arses (in fact they dont need to you can do it online) thats their problem not the governments.
Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?
Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?
Why so difficult to reply directly to a direct question? Governments are always redrawing bounderies whatever party and reducing mp,s can only be a good thing.Wish they could do it with the house of lords too.Reduced voter engagement is the voters fault its not hard to register.I dont know what data they are using do you? but would guess the last electoral roll which is pretty recent data as we have only recently had an election.
MP numbers are not being reduced.
Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data a good thing?
Is no Parliamentary oversight of this process a good thing?
Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?
Why so difficult to answer directly? Yes/no would actually be fine First tell me how voter engagement is being reduced?When an election is called everyone has the opportunity to register to vote yes or no?/.If you boundary has been redrawn does that stop you from registering to voter yes or no? Do you think that local councils should beable to access your data from various government sources yes or no?.The data protection tin foil hats would be having a field day ffs.So please explain how this is going to affect anyone who wants to vote in the next council or general election as it seems to me you are convinced that 9 million people will not be eligible to vote which i would say in the uk is illegal and would cause a law suit and a void election.
What is the purpose of redrawing boundaries?
If you do not have the correct information for who is in a constituency now, how do you redraw it?
The mailing to every residence is absolutely the most accurate method of measuring voter numbers, not inferring from other data.
I wrote nothing about not being eligible to vote.
Surely there are rules on size of each constituency which limits possible boundary changes. Is it not a commission that works on such things? Who stops people registering to vote? If they want to vote its perfectly accessible for all and more than well publicized
The Boundary Comission works to the terms that it is given and uses the data that it had available.
If it has less accurate data available it can less accurately draw boundaries.
Does that make logical sense?
I said nothing about people being prevented from voting.
I think that any process that makes it more likely that someone to vote is preferable for one that does not.
What do you think?
So they work within set parameters?
What data is inaccurate before they decide on boundaries?
Whatever constituency you happen to fall in it does not stop you registering. Even if yours changes you just register in your new one. If in doubt check.
Why does it affect Labour differently to other parties
Does it make logical sense that the most accurate voter data now will provide the best information for redrawing boundaries?
That's a completely neutral question. You must be able to answer that directly.
If you are not recording 9 million voters then you cannot draw boundaries correctly right?
I said nothing anywhere about being prevented from voting.
Once again, I think that any process that makes it more likely that someone to vote is preferable for one that does not.
What do you think?
I didn't mention Labour. I said that reduction in the votes of the young or the poor tended to favour the Tory party.
Do you disagree?
I did not say accurate data is not good. I asked what data is inaccurate BEFORE the boundary changes. So are you saying 9 million are not recorded before the boundary changes or will be after?. It's the individuals responsibility to make sure they are registered. If they do that then there is no problem. If they don't do it then it's down to them. Why do you say the poor and young will be affected more? Yes I disagree with you as I believe people have to take responsibility of their actions or in actions
There is a separate discussion about people's responsibility to register to vote if they wish and even distribution of population within a constituency.
You and I disagree over it being an inherent good that more people should vote. Fine.
Yes, several million people could be missing from voter registration. That is, undoubtedly, a maximum. That is because the paper system catches a lot of people who may otherwise not get around to registration because it is not an immediate priority and can easily be put off and forgotten.
If you don't believe that, then again how you view normal behaviour and priorities, particularly of younger people, is very different to my own.
The paper system currently maximises the accuracy of electoral data. Without replacing or supplementing this process then the data will be less accurate.
Where did I say it's not a good thing more people should vote? Where I disagree is I believe people need to take responsibility and not leave such things to the state. As many have said the news of elections are unavoidable. If all these people you say are being left out took a few minutes to register and vote then we would have better turnouts which I welcome
So you do think it is a good thing that more people should vote?
You haven't actually responded to that question have you?
I think any opportunity the state or any other organisation provides to encourage this is good.
You do not. You call it "taking responsibility" but you disagree with money being spent specifically to encourage this.
The fact that this direct mailing also provides the most accurate measure of voter location is also of no importance to you with respect to setting constituency boundaries.
Got it
Yes of course and I have never said otherwise despite your false claims.
Where we disagree is how that should be be achieved.
At what point did I mention money? Yet again its you making things up.
So to directly answer your question NO I do not think its up to the state I think people should take responsibility. I they want to vote register or check the register and vote. The elections are very well covered so no excuse for people who actually want to vote making sure they can
GOT IT
So you do agree that the government should take all necessary steps to both encourage voting and accurately assess the numbers of people eligible vote so as to accurately draw constituency boundaries?
We do not disagree at all in that case.
I apologise for any misunderstanding
I think you need to 're read my last post as I clearly said NO I don't think its up to the state instead it is people's responsibility to register or check the register and vote. The end goal of people voting we seem to agree. How we get there we disagree.
Right. So you do not think that as many people as possible should be encouraged to vote?
I have no idea of your opinion on achieving the most accurate data for drawing constituency boundaries.
If this accidentally means that the state encourages people to register to vote is that a good or a bad thing?
I can't help but be confused by what yoga re actually saying.
If you can't understand what I have said already I'm not sure you ever will. It would help if you stopped making false claims of what I said. It seems its not just me you do this to. Let me say once again NO I do not think the state should be responsible for people registering to vote I think its people's responsibility. It's not hard and very well publicised
How can you claim to support maximise voter registration and voting but not want it to be encouraged it in any way?
Look at my last post.
You also have no interest in the accuracy of drawing new constituency boundaries in a fair way either I guess...
I am giving my opinion on a forum and that is I think it is not up to the state to make sure people register its up to the people. If these people are keen to vote what more incentive do they need. If they can't be bothered its not the state's fault"I didn't say that it was "the state's fault". It sounds like you are saying that you don't think that it's the state's responsibility to engage the electorate. You don't think that will create a rather significant deficit in democratic legitimacy? It means that the most successful route to power will be in ensuring voter apathy and only engaging the most extreme elements of the electorate. Oh...wait... No interest in fair constituency boundaries or is that just not of interest? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Edited as a civil conversation. It is apparent how much has been written on-topic and what information is available to understand each others position: Apparently everyone thinks that encouraging people to register to vote is a good thing. Does anyone not? Apparently the state making any effort to encourage people to register to vote is bad. Is that correct? Having accurate data to correctly define constituency boundaries is a good thing. Is that correct? Using the current method of direct mailing is not an acceptable method to do this. It does, in fact, miss a lot of people. Is that correct? Removing direct voter registration is acceptable with no other method being put in place even if that reduces registration further. Is that correct? 1 - A fair assumption, most people would want others to have the opportunity to vote. 2 - Not one person has said that. 3 - Not one person has said it is not a good thing. 4 - Not one person has said it is not an acceptable way, just questioned its necessity. 5 - Not one person has said it is ok to reduce registration. They have said they don't believe it will make a difference. following on, (I hit post before I was finished) Postal reminders are out dated and unnecessary. A "strawman" argument based on what? They are questions, not "an argument". Let me rewrite this then. 1 - Everyone thinks that encouraging people to register to vote is a good thing. 2 - The state making any effort to encourage people to register to vote is a good thing. 3 - Having accurate data to correctly define constituency boundaries is a good thing 4 - Using the current method of direct mailing is an acceptable method to do this even if it misses some potential voters out. 5 - Removing direct voter registration is not acceptable with no other method being put in place as it would reduce voter registration. If this is what you meant then I agree too
You ignore my explicit statement saying that postal reminders are unnecessary.
Either it is a good idea to soecifically remind people to register to vote during their busyy lives or it is not.
Apparently it is, but actually you would rather that it was left to chance and self-motivation and organisation.
Many people do not find the registration process as "easy" as you all seem to think nor is everyone as organised as you clearly are.
There is one organised method of voter registration in the UK. That is direct mail. For some reason you seem to believe that it would make no difference whatsoever to the number of people registering to vote if it is withdrawn with no other process put in place.
Either accurate voter data is important for defining constituency boundaries or it is not. If it is and direct mail registration is currently the most accurate way of doing so, then removing it will reduce accuracy.
As I said, people get more than enough reminder to vote, and to register. It is not left to chance and even the postal reminder requires motivation to complete. It also wastes masses of paper, and money.
Registering to vote online requires you to answer the same questions as the paper form. Infact you can still use the paper form, it just wont be sent automatically. The people that are most likely to struggle with online registration are the elderly who are most likely to vote tory. This disproves your theory that this is an attempt by the tories to skew things in their favour.
Now we can address your concerns about accurate data for boundary changes. The important information is how many voters are in each ward. If people do not register to vote then they are not a voter. Prompting the to register when they aren't really interested (and possibly wont vote) will have a negative affect on the accuracy and usefulness of the data.
You do not actually appear to think that there is any merit in encouraging voter registration. You have stated, clearly enough, that no effort should be made to achieve this either in paper registration or in any other way.
Do not, in that case, claim that you think that maximising voter registration is something that you support.
Accurate constituency boundaries are based on numbers of eligible voters, not those registered to vote at a given point in time. Hence there is a need to encourage people to register to vote especially if they are highly mobile.
The Boundary Commissions were originally tasked with setting out new constituencies for 600 seats rather than the current 650. Recommendations were delivered for 2018.
The Government have now shelved these and will redraw constituencies for the 650 seats but remove any system for encouraging voter registration to get as accurate a number as possible.
There will also now be no Parliamentary oversight of this process.
A Cabinet Office paper gives this information:
"Research has identified a number of specific groups of elector types in which
individuals are more likely to be unregistered now and/or less likely to be confirmed.
Previously, Electoral Commission research has highlighted seven groups where rates
of registration fall below that of the average rate of the UK: social renters (78 per cent
registered); BME groups (77 per cent); Irish and Commonwealth national (68 per
cent); private renters (56 per cent); young people, 19-24 years (56 per cent); and
young people, 17-18 years (55 per cent).
Additional research by the Commission has suggested as many as 22 per cent of students will not be registered to vote,
giving them a registration rate similar to that of social renters."
Again with the strawmanning, mis representing and telling me what I think. You just can`t help yourself can you?
I never said that no effort should be made to encourage voter registration.
I never said that maximising voter registration is something I support.
What I did say is everyone should have the opportunity to vote and be encouraged, I also said that not voting is a choice and a postal reminder will not change that.
As for accuracy, why should people that don't vote be included in the calculations? Simple answer is labour want them included because it makes each individual vote in each ward more powerful. If the catchment area of a ward contains 100,00 people, for example, but only 50,000 vote each vote is carrying twice the power. Basically recruiting the ones that don't want to vote, by proxy. As it is mainly non tory wards with the lowest turnout it disproportionately benefits them. I guess it is easier for labour to blame the bogey men than look at why people aren't voting for them.
But of course, It must the tories fault or maybe just coincidence that voter registration has dropped in the period that MANY labour voters turned their back on them.
Well, had you read the article, you would see that it is also the Electoral Commission who are critical of this government's behaviour.
So we have now come to you not wanting to encourage people to vote.
Only those who can be bothered too in the abusive, ugly population of today.
Participation in democracy with the state not interested in engaging its population.
You include electors, not voters specifically to prevent unfair representation.
Unregistered but eligible voters are not considered when drawing up constituency boundaries – even though they could register at any moment.
Also the boundaries will only be drawn based on the last general election, not the latest location of the population.
According to the Economic and Social Research Council:
"Labour has traditionally benefited substantially from variations in constituency electorates, winning seats on average smaller than the Conservatives’. Equalisation of electorates removes this pro-Labour advantage and widens the gap between the two."
So also making no effort to engage younger and poorer voters will further exacerbate this effect.
Is there a reason that you ignored the data from the Cabinet Office report?"It is the electoral comission making reccomendations on changes, however the article is mainly being used to give labour zealots a voice. And with that voice they spout things such as - “The Tories know that when lots of people are registered to vote, they are less likely to do well in elections – which is why the government has done nothing to address this unprecedented democratic crisis.” compared to the fact - "The (cabinet office) spokesperson added: “We want as many people as possible to register to vote and it is now easier than ever to do so. The 2019 general election was contested on the largest ever electoral register.” Again you come with the strawman representation - "So we have now come to you not wanting to encourage people to vote."
"Labour has traditionally benefited substantially from variations in constituency electorates, winning seats on average smaller than the Conservatives’. Equalisation of electorates removes this pro-Labour advantage and widens the gap between the two."
^ This about sums it up, labour want to keep their advantage but not actually win the voters, just enrol them by proxy.
"Is there a reason that you ignored the data from the Cabinet Office report?" - the same as my whole argument,some people don't care about voting, a postal reminder isn't going to change that.
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If people cannot be bothered to register to vote the they cannot moan about it. It’s real easy takes less than 5 mins online and the argument about not having access is bollux you can even get to an Internet cafe to do it Free wifi at library,s too there really is no excuse not to register if you want to.Nice try with your usual Boris bashing posts but you really haven't thought this one through.
Determinedly focusing on just one thing.
Not read the article then? Not responding to the direct quotes either?
Not a surprise Yes i read it and have replied but i will repeat myself,there is nothing stopping people registering to vote.If people cant be bothered that is their problem not the governments,now if it was compulsory to vote like in Austria i would agree it would be up to the government to make sure everyone was registered but its not.If some lazy fuckers cant get off their arses (in fact they dont need to you can do it online) thats their problem not the governments.
Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?
Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?
Why so difficult to reply directly to a direct question? Governments are always redrawing bounderies whatever party and reducing mp,s can only be a good thing.Wish they could do it with the house of lords too.Reduced voter engagement is the voters fault its not hard to register.I dont know what data they are using do you? but would guess the last electoral roll which is pretty recent data as we have only recently had an election.
MP numbers are not being reduced.
Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data a good thing?
Is no Parliamentary oversight of this process a good thing?
Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?
Why so difficult to answer directly? Yes/no would actually be fine First tell me how voter engagement is being reduced?When an election is called everyone has the opportunity to register to vote yes or no?/.If you boundary has been redrawn does that stop you from registering to voter yes or no? Do you think that local councils should beable to access your data from various government sources yes or no?.The data protection tin foil hats would be having a field day ffs.So please explain how this is going to affect anyone who wants to vote in the next council or general election as it seems to me you are convinced that 9 million people will not be eligible to vote which i would say in the uk is illegal and would cause a law suit and a void election.
What is the purpose of redrawing boundaries?
If you do not have the correct information for who is in a constituency now, how do you redraw it?
The mailing to every residence is absolutely the most accurate method of measuring voter numbers, not inferring from other data.
I wrote nothing about not being eligible to vote.
Surely there are rules on size of each constituency which limits possible boundary changes. Is it not a commission that works on such things? Who stops people registering to vote? If they want to vote its perfectly accessible for all and more than well publicized
The Boundary Comission works to the terms that it is given and uses the data that it had available.
If it has less accurate data available it can less accurately draw boundaries.
Does that make logical sense?
I said nothing about people being prevented from voting.
I think that any process that makes it more likely that someone to vote is preferable for one that does not.
What do you think?
So they work within set parameters?
What data is inaccurate before they decide on boundaries?
Whatever constituency you happen to fall in it does not stop you registering. Even if yours changes you just register in your new one. If in doubt check.
Why does it affect Labour differently to other parties
Does it make logical sense that the most accurate voter data now will provide the best information for redrawing boundaries?
That's a completely neutral question. You must be able to answer that directly.
If you are not recording 9 million voters then you cannot draw boundaries correctly right?
I said nothing anywhere about being prevented from voting.
Once again, I think that any process that makes it more likely that someone to vote is preferable for one that does not.
What do you think?
I didn't mention Labour. I said that reduction in the votes of the young or the poor tended to favour the Tory party.
Do you disagree?
I did not say accurate data is not good. I asked what data is inaccurate BEFORE the boundary changes. So are you saying 9 million are not recorded before the boundary changes or will be after?. It's the individuals responsibility to make sure they are registered. If they do that then there is no problem. If they don't do it then it's down to them. Why do you say the poor and young will be affected more? Yes I disagree with you as I believe people have to take responsibility of their actions or in actions
There is a separate discussion about people's responsibility to register to vote if they wish and even distribution of population within a constituency.
You and I disagree over it being an inherent good that more people should vote. Fine.
Yes, several million people could be missing from voter registration. That is, undoubtedly, a maximum. That is because the paper system catches a lot of people who may otherwise not get around to registration because it is not an immediate priority and can easily be put off and forgotten.
If you don't believe that, then again how you view normal behaviour and priorities, particularly of younger people, is very different to my own.
The paper system currently maximises the accuracy of electoral data. Without replacing or supplementing this process then the data will be less accurate.
Where did I say it's not a good thing more people should vote? Where I disagree is I believe people need to take responsibility and not leave such things to the state. As many have said the news of elections are unavoidable. If all these people you say are being left out took a few minutes to register and vote then we would have better turnouts which I welcome
So you do think it is a good thing that more people should vote?
You haven't actually responded to that question have you?
I think any opportunity the state or any other organisation provides to encourage this is good.
You do not. You call it "taking responsibility" but you disagree with money being spent specifically to encourage this.
The fact that this direct mailing also provides the most accurate measure of voter location is also of no importance to you with respect to setting constituency boundaries.
Got it
Yes of course and I have never said otherwise despite your false claims.
Where we disagree is how that should be be achieved.
At what point did I mention money? Yet again its you making things up.
So to directly answer your question NO I do not think its up to the state I think people should take responsibility. I they want to vote register or check the register and vote. The elections are very well covered so no excuse for people who actually want to vote making sure they can
GOT IT
So you do agree that the government should take all necessary steps to both encourage voting and accurately assess the numbers of people eligible vote so as to accurately draw constituency boundaries?
We do not disagree at all in that case.
I apologise for any misunderstanding
I think you need to 're read my last post as I clearly said NO I don't think its up to the state instead it is people's responsibility to register or check the register and vote. The end goal of people voting we seem to agree. How we get there we disagree.
Right. So you do not think that as many people as possible should be encouraged to vote?
I have no idea of your opinion on achieving the most accurate data for drawing constituency boundaries.
If this accidentally means that the state encourages people to register to vote is that a good or a bad thing?
I can't help but be confused by what yoga re actually saying.
If you can't understand what I have said already I'm not sure you ever will. It would help if you stopped making false claims of what I said. It seems its not just me you do this to. Let me say once again NO I do not think the state should be responsible for people registering to vote I think its people's responsibility. It's not hard and very well publicised
How can you claim to support maximise voter registration and voting but not want it to be encouraged it in any way?
Look at my last post.
You also have no interest in the accuracy of drawing new constituency boundaries in a fair way either I guess...
I am giving my opinion on a forum and that is I think it is not up to the state to make sure people register its up to the people. If these people are keen to vote what more incentive do they need. If they can't be bothered its not the state's fault
I didn't say that it was "the state's fault".
It sounds like you are saying that you don't think that it's the state's responsibility to engage the electorate.
You don't think that will create a rather significant deficit in democratic legitimacy?
It means that the most successful route to power will be in ensuring voter apathy and only engaging the most extreme elements of the electorate.
Oh...wait...
No interest in fair constituency boundaries or is that just not of interest?"As I said if people want to register and vote they can. No problems at all. It's simple and easy. The elections are well publicised so no excuses for not doing it. It's down to the individual to take responsibility no one else | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Well, had you read the article, you would see that it is also the Electoral Commission who are critical of this government's behaviour. So we have now come to you not wanting to encourage people to vote. Only those who can be bothered too in the abusive, ugly politics of today. Participation in democracy with the state not interested in engaging its population. You include electors, not voters specifically to prevent unfair representation. Unregistered but eligible voters are not considered when drawing up constituency boundaries – even though they could register at any moment. Also the boundaries will only be drawn based on the last general election, not the latest location of the population. According to the Economic and Social Research Council: "Labour has traditionally benefited substantially from variations in constituency electorates, winning seats on average smaller than the Conservatives’. Equalisation of electorates removes this pro-Labour advantage and widens the gap between the two." So also making no effort to engage younger and poorer voters will further exacerbate this effect. Is there a reason that you ignored the data from the Cabinet Office report? It is the electoral comission making reccomendations on changes, however the article is mainly being used to give labour zealots a voice. And with that voice they spout things such as - “The Tories know that when lots of people are registered to vote, they are less likely to do well in elections – which is why the government has done nothing to address this unprecedented democratic crisis.” compared to the fact - "The (cabinet office) spokesperson added: “We want as many people as possible to register to vote and it is now easier than ever to do so. The 2019 general election was contested on the largest ever electoral register.” Again you come with the strawman representation - "So we have now come to you not wanting to encourage people to vote."
"Labour has traditionally benefited substantially from variations in constituency electorates, winning seats on average smaller than the Conservatives’. Equalisation of electorates removes this pro-Labour advantage and widens the gap between the two."
^ This about sums it up, labour want to keep their advantage but not actually win the voters, just enrol them by proxy.
"Is there a reason that you ignored the data from the Cabinet Office report?" - the same as my whole argument,some people don't care about voting, a postal reminder isn't going to change that.
"You are only interested in the political argument here it seems. That is where we differ. I have not mentioned any party difference have I? The government in power is putting a system in place that appears likely to bias the electoral system in it's favour. That is corruption whoever does it. Is that true? They are also seeking to have no democratic oversight of this process. Is that acceptable to you? Claiming that the recommendation of an independent body gives "labour zealots a voice" is completely made up and sounds just a little paranoid don't you think? Again, if boundaries are to be redrawn they should use the most accurate electoral data. You setbased on those eligible to vote because it is not possible to say who will choose to vote at any given time. Government saying that they "want as many people to register to vote as possible" but acting in contradiction to recommendations of the organisation that is set up to ensure that is quite demonstrative. You disagree with the statement anyway. You have said so. You do not believe that anything should be done to encourage people to register to vote even though you claim to want as many people to vote as possible. You can understand that, right? You seem genuinely unable to empathise with people different to you. There is a whole range of reasons that people don't vote. Not caring really is not the the only reason. Stating that is purely your assertion, correct? I did not say a postal reminder is the only thing that would encourage people to register. It is one. Removing it with nothing else being done to replace it or improve the situation just makes things a little worse. That is the Electoral Commission view. You appear to have a purely partisan view of this and have no regard whatsoever for people who live a life different to yours. You will undoubtedly need to have the last word so all I will say is that if an independent body gives recommendations on the process fundamental to the democratic process, the government of the day should follow those recommendations unless they provide a very good reason not to. They should also make that process transparent and open to democratic oversight. That is not what is happening. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If people cannot be bothered to register to vote the they cannot moan about it. It’s real easy takes less than 5 mins online and the argument about not having access is bollux you can even get to an Internet cafe to do it Free wifi at library,s too there really is no excuse not to register if you want to.Nice try with your usual Boris bashing posts but you really haven't thought this one through.
Determinedly focusing on just one thing.
Not read the article then? Not responding to the direct quotes either?
Not a surprise Yes i read it and have replied but i will repeat myself,there is nothing stopping people registering to vote.If people cant be bothered that is their problem not the governments,now if it was compulsory to vote like in Austria i would agree it would be up to the government to make sure everyone was registered but its not.If some lazy fuckers cant get off their arses (in fact they dont need to you can do it online) thats their problem not the governments.
Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?
Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?
Why so difficult to reply directly to a direct question? Governments are always redrawing bounderies whatever party and reducing mp,s can only be a good thing.Wish they could do it with the house of lords too.Reduced voter engagement is the voters fault its not hard to register.I dont know what data they are using do you? but would guess the last electoral roll which is pretty recent data as we have only recently had an election.
MP numbers are not being reduced.
Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data a good thing?
Is no Parliamentary oversight of this process a good thing?
Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?
Why so difficult to answer directly? Yes/no would actually be fine First tell me how voter engagement is being reduced?When an election is called everyone has the opportunity to register to vote yes or no?/.If you boundary has been redrawn does that stop you from registering to voter yes or no? Do you think that local councils should beable to access your data from various government sources yes or no?.The data protection tin foil hats would be having a field day ffs.So please explain how this is going to affect anyone who wants to vote in the next council or general election as it seems to me you are convinced that 9 million people will not be eligible to vote which i would say in the uk is illegal and would cause a law suit and a void election.
What is the purpose of redrawing boundaries?
If you do not have the correct information for who is in a constituency now, how do you redraw it?
The mailing to every residence is absolutely the most accurate method of measuring voter numbers, not inferring from other data.
I wrote nothing about not being eligible to vote.
Surely there are rules on size of each constituency which limits possible boundary changes. Is it not a commission that works on such things? Who stops people registering to vote? If they want to vote its perfectly accessible for all and more than well publicized
The Boundary Comission works to the terms that it is given and uses the data that it had available.
If it has less accurate data available it can less accurately draw boundaries.
Does that make logical sense?
I said nothing about people being prevented from voting.
I think that any process that makes it more likely that someone to vote is preferable for one that does not.
What do you think?
So they work within set parameters?
What data is inaccurate before they decide on boundaries?
Whatever constituency you happen to fall in it does not stop you registering. Even if yours changes you just register in your new one. If in doubt check.
Why does it affect Labour differently to other parties
Does it make logical sense that the most accurate voter data now will provide the best information for redrawing boundaries?
That's a completely neutral question. You must be able to answer that directly.
If you are not recording 9 million voters then you cannot draw boundaries correctly right?
I said nothing anywhere about being prevented from voting.
Once again, I think that any process that makes it more likely that someone to vote is preferable for one that does not.
What do you think?
I didn't mention Labour. I said that reduction in the votes of the young or the poor tended to favour the Tory party.
Do you disagree?
I did not say accurate data is not good. I asked what data is inaccurate BEFORE the boundary changes. So are you saying 9 million are not recorded before the boundary changes or will be after?. It's the individuals responsibility to make sure they are registered. If they do that then there is no problem. If they don't do it then it's down to them. Why do you say the poor and young will be affected more? Yes I disagree with you as I believe people have to take responsibility of their actions or in actions
There is a separate discussion about people's responsibility to register to vote if they wish and even distribution of population within a constituency.
You and I disagree over it being an inherent good that more people should vote. Fine.
Yes, several million people could be missing from voter registration. That is, undoubtedly, a maximum. That is because the paper system catches a lot of people who may otherwise not get around to registration because it is not an immediate priority and can easily be put off and forgotten.
If you don't believe that, then again how you view normal behaviour and priorities, particularly of younger people, is very different to my own.
The paper system currently maximises the accuracy of electoral data. Without replacing or supplementing this process then the data will be less accurate.
Where did I say it's not a good thing more people should vote? Where I disagree is I believe people need to take responsibility and not leave such things to the state. As many have said the news of elections are unavoidable. If all these people you say are being left out took a few minutes to register and vote then we would have better turnouts which I welcome
So you do think it is a good thing that more people should vote?
You haven't actually responded to that question have you?
I think any opportunity the state or any other organisation provides to encourage this is good.
You do not. You call it "taking responsibility" but you disagree with money being spent specifically to encourage this.
The fact that this direct mailing also provides the most accurate measure of voter location is also of no importance to you with respect to setting constituency boundaries.
Got it
Yes of course and I have never said otherwise despite your false claims.
Where we disagree is how that should be be achieved.
At what point did I mention money? Yet again its you making things up.
So to directly answer your question NO I do not think its up to the state I think people should take responsibility. I they want to vote register or check the register and vote. The elections are very well covered so no excuse for people who actually want to vote making sure they can
GOT IT
So you do agree that the government should take all necessary steps to both encourage voting and accurately assess the numbers of people eligible vote so as to accurately draw constituency boundaries?
We do not disagree at all in that case.
I apologise for any misunderstanding
I think you need to 're read my last post as I clearly said NO I don't think its up to the state instead it is people's responsibility to register or check the register and vote. The end goal of people voting we seem to agree. How we get there we disagree.
Right. So you do not think that as many people as possible should be encouraged to vote?
I have no idea of your opinion on achieving the most accurate data for drawing constituency boundaries.
If this accidentally means that the state encourages people to register to vote is that a good or a bad thing?
I can't help but be confused by what yoga re actually saying.
If you can't understand what I have said already I'm not sure you ever will. It would help if you stopped making false claims of what I said. It seems its not just me you do this to. Let me say once again NO I do not think the state should be responsible for people registering to vote I think its people's responsibility. It's not hard and very well publicised
How can you claim to support maximise voter registration and voting but not want it to be encouraged it in any way?
Look at my last post.
You also have no interest in the accuracy of drawing new constituency boundaries in a fair way either I guess...
I am giving my opinion on a forum and that is I think it is not up to the state to make sure people register its up to the people. If these people are keen to vote what more incentive do they need. If they can't be bothered its not the state's fault
I didn't say that it was "the state's fault".
It sounds like you are saying that you don't think that it's the state's responsibility to engage the electorate.
You don't think that will create a rather significant deficit in democratic legitimacy?
It means that the most successful route to power will be in ensuring voter apathy and only engaging the most extreme elements of the electorate.
Oh...wait...
No interest in fair constituency boundaries or is that just not of interest?
As I said if people want to register and vote they can. No problems at all. It's simple and easy. The elections are well publicised so no excuses for not doing it. It's down to the individual to take responsibility no one else"I understand, there is only one thing that you wish to discuss. Anything else is inconvenient. Just consider that many people have a background very different to yours and the reasons for not registering to vote are many and varied. Some can be overcome. I think that they should be and that actively increasing participation in democracy is a good think. You, it seems, do not. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"That is democracy in action if you dont want to register or vote you dont have to, its up to the people running to make people want to vote for them." Certainly. I agree. But what we are talking about here is the Government putting hurdles in place to discourage (or make it difficult) people from voting. That is not, by any measure, democracy. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"That is democracy in action if you dont want to register or vote you dont have to, its up to the people running to make people want to vote for them. Certainly. I agree. But what we are talking about here is the Government putting hurdles in place to discourage (or make it difficult) people from voting. That is not, by any measure, democracy." Hurdles? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"That is democracy in action if you dont want to register or vote you dont have to, its up to the people running to make people want to vote for them. Certainly. I agree. But what we are talking about here is the Government putting hurdles in place to discourage (or make it difficult) people from voting. That is not, by any measure, democracy.Hurdles? " https://fullfact.org/crime/voter-id-2019/ | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"That is democracy in action if you dont want to register or vote you dont have to, its up to the people running to make people want to vote for them. Certainly. I agree. But what we are talking about here is the Government putting hurdles in place to discourage (or make it difficult) people from voting. That is not, by any measure, democracy.Hurdles? https://fullfact.org/crime/voter-id-2019/" What has that to do with this thread? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"That is democracy in action if you dont want to register or vote you dont have to, its up to the people running to make people want to vote for them. Certainly. I agree. But what we are talking about here is the Government putting hurdles in place to discourage (or make it difficult) people from voting. That is not, by any measure, democracy.Hurdles? https://fullfact.org/crime/voter-id-2019/What has that to do with this thread? " It's a pretty good example of voter suppression... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"That is democracy in action if you dont want to register or vote you dont have to, its up to the people running to make people want to vote for them. Certainly. I agree. But what we are talking about here is the Government putting hurdles in place to discourage (or make it difficult) people from voting. That is not, by any measure, democracy.Hurdles? https://fullfact.org/crime/voter-id-2019/What has that to do with this thread? It's a pretty good example of voter suppression..." Is it compulsory to have id to vote? yes or no. was it a trial ,are trials conducted to see if the proposal is viable? what has this got to do with the actual thread? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"That is democracy in action if you dont want to register or vote you dont have to, its up to the people running to make people want to vote for them. Certainly. I agree. But what we are talking about here is the Government putting hurdles in place to discourage (or make it difficult) people from voting. That is not, by any measure, democracy.Hurdles? https://fullfact.org/crime/voter-id-2019/What has that to do with this thread? It's a pretty good example of voter suppression...Is it compulsory to have id to vote? yes or no. was it a trial ,are trials conducted to see if the proposal is viable? what has this got to do with the actual thread? " Voter Suppression is the title of the thread. Forcing voters to have photo ID is a well known tactic to disenfranchise the poorer sections of society. Yes it was a trial, but I would argue that it was not to test it's feasibility, but it's efficacy at achieving the title of this thread. Which it scored well at. Have the trials caused the government to row back on their desire to implement this across the country? It would not appear to have done so. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"That is democracy in action if you dont want to register or vote you dont have to, its up to the people running to make people want to vote for them. Certainly. I agree. But what we are talking about here is the Government putting hurdles in place to discourage (or make it difficult) people from voting. That is not, by any measure, democracy.Hurdles? https://fullfact.org/crime/voter-id-2019/What has that to do with this thread? It's a pretty good example of voter suppression...Is it compulsory to have id to vote? yes or no. was it a trial ,are trials conducted to see if the proposal is viable? what has this got to do with the actual thread? Voter Suppression is the title of the thread. Forcing voters to have photo ID is a well known tactic to disenfranchise the poorer sections of society. Yes it was a trial, but I would argue that it was not to test it's feasibility, but it's efficacy at achieving the title of this thread. Which it scored well at. Have the trials caused the government to row back on their desire to implement this across the country? It would not appear to have done so." yes agree that was the tittle of the thread but nothing to do with the link the op posted.Well if it has i would say the trial was a success in proving that it was the wrong move. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Going forward, I think that they ought to change voting day to a weekend. Investigate digital voting. Emphasise that every vote counts, and that every vote is important. Make people actually want to vote and to make a difference. " This is very much the point. The thrust from most of the posts here is that you can vote if you want and the state should not make any effort to encourage it. In fact it's fine to withdraw the few processes that do. I think that is a real issue. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"That is democracy in action if you dont want to register or vote you dont have to, its up to the people running to make people want to vote for them. Certainly. I agree. But what we are talking about here is the Government putting hurdles in place to discourage (or make it difficult) people from voting. That is not, by any measure, democracy.Hurdles? https://fullfact.org/crime/voter-id-2019/What has that to do with this thread? It's a pretty good example of voter suppression...Is it compulsory to have id to vote? yes or no. was it a trial ,are trials conducted to see if the proposal is viable? what has this got to do with the actual thread? " What was the purpose of the trial? Is there actually a significant problem with voting fraud other than a very small number of postal ballots for which this would make no difference? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"That is democracy in action if you dont want to register or vote you dont have to, its up to the people running to make people want to vote for them. Certainly. I agree. But what we are talking about here is the Government putting hurdles in place to discourage (or make it difficult) people from voting. That is not, by any measure, democracy.Hurdles? https://fullfact.org/crime/voter-id-2019/What has that to do with this thread? It's a pretty good example of voter suppression...Is it compulsory to have id to vote? yes or no. was it a trial ,are trials conducted to see if the proposal is viable? what has this got to do with the actual thread? What was the purpose of the trial? Is there actually a significant problem with voting fraud other than a very small number of postal ballots for which this would make no difference?" Im not sure not looked into it maybe it had something to do with the tower hamlets election fraud by Mohammed lutfur rahman. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"That is democracy in action if you dont want to register or vote you dont have to, its up to the people running to make people want to vote for them. Certainly. I agree. But what we are talking about here is the Government putting hurdles in place to discourage (or make it difficult) people from voting. That is not, by any measure, democracy.Hurdles? https://fullfact.org/crime/voter-id-2019/What has that to do with this thread? It's a pretty good example of voter suppression...Is it compulsory to have id to vote? yes or no. was it a trial ,are trials conducted to see if the proposal is viable? what has this got to do with the actual thread? What was the purpose of the trial? Is there actually a significant problem with voting fraud other than a very small number of postal ballots for which this would make no difference?Im not sure not looked into it maybe it had something to do with the tower hamlets election fraud by Mohammed lutfur rahman. " ...or is it a well trodden path to reducing voter turnout for the poor and vulnerable as in the US? How about looking into it? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"That is democracy in action if you dont want to register or vote you dont have to, its up to the people running to make people want to vote for them. Certainly. I agree. But what we are talking about here is the Government putting hurdles in place to discourage (or make it difficult) people from voting. That is not, by any measure, democracy.Hurdles? https://fullfact.org/crime/voter-id-2019/What has that to do with this thread? It's a pretty good example of voter suppression...Is it compulsory to have id to vote? yes or no. was it a trial ,are trials conducted to see if the proposal is viable? what has this got to do with the actual thread? What was the purpose of the trial? Is there actually a significant problem with voting fraud other than a very small number of postal ballots for which this would make no difference?Im not sure not looked into it maybe it had something to do with the tower hamlets election fraud by Mohammed lutfur rahman. ...or is it a well trodden path to reducing voter turnout for the poor and vulnerable as in the US? How about looking into it?" The tories dont need to reduce numbers to win elections labour are quiet capable of fucking things up themselves. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"That is democracy in action if you dont want to register or vote you dont have to, its up to the people running to make people want to vote for them. Certainly. I agree. But what we are talking about here is the Government putting hurdles in place to discourage (or make it difficult) people from voting. That is not, by any measure, democracy.Hurdles? https://fullfact.org/crime/voter-id-2019/What has that to do with this thread? It's a pretty good example of voter suppression...Is it compulsory to have id to vote? yes or no. was it a trial ,are trials conducted to see if the proposal is viable? what has this got to do with the actual thread? What was the purpose of the trial? Is there actually a significant problem with voting fraud other than a very small number of postal ballots for which this would make no difference?Im not sure not looked into it maybe it had something to do with the tower hamlets election fraud by Mohammed lutfur rahman. ...or is it a well trodden path to reducing voter turnout for the poor and vulnerable as in the US? How about looking into it?The tories dont need to reduce numbers to win elections labour are quiet capable of fucking things up themselves." So why these policies? Why don't you look into it? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If people cannot be bothered to register to vote the they cannot moan about it. It’s real easy takes less than 5 mins online and the argument about not having access is bollux you can even get to an Internet cafe to do it Free wifi at library,s too there really is no excuse not to register if you want to.Nice try with your usual Boris bashing posts but you really haven't thought this one through.
Determinedly focusing on just one thing.
Not read the article then? Not responding to the direct quotes either?
Not a surprise Yes i read it and have replied but i will repeat myself,there is nothing stopping people registering to vote.If people cant be bothered that is their problem not the governments,now if it was compulsory to vote like in Austria i would agree it would be up to the government to make sure everyone was registered but its not.If some lazy fuckers cant get off their arses (in fact they dont need to you can do it online) thats their problem not the governments.
Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data and know Parliamentary oversight a good thing?
Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?
Why so difficult to reply directly to a direct question? Governments are always redrawing bounderies whatever party and reducing mp,s can only be a good thing.Wish they could do it with the house of lords too.Reduced voter engagement is the voters fault its not hard to register.I dont know what data they are using do you? but would guess the last electoral roll which is pretty recent data as we have only recently had an election.
MP numbers are not being reduced.
Is redrawing constituency boundaries with incorrect data a good thing?
Is no Parliamentary oversight of this process a good thing?
Is reduced voter engagement a good thing?
Why so difficult to answer directly? Yes/no would actually be fine First tell me how voter engagement is being reduced?When an election is called everyone has the opportunity to register to vote yes or no?/.If you boundary has been redrawn does that stop you from registering to voter yes or no? Do you think that local councils should beable to access your data from various government sources yes or no?.The data protection tin foil hats would be having a field day ffs.So please explain how this is going to affect anyone who wants to vote in the next council or general election as it seems to me you are convinced that 9 million people will not be eligible to vote which i would say in the uk is illegal and would cause a law suit and a void election.
What is the purpose of redrawing boundaries?
If you do not have the correct information for who is in a constituency now, how do you redraw it?
The mailing to every residence is absolutely the most accurate method of measuring voter numbers, not inferring from other data.
I wrote nothing about not being eligible to vote.
Surely there are rules on size of each constituency which limits possible boundary changes. Is it not a commission that works on such things? Who stops people registering to vote? If they want to vote its perfectly accessible for all and more than well publicized
The Boundary Comission works to the terms that it is given and uses the data that it had available.
If it has less accurate data available it can less accurately draw boundaries.
Does that make logical sense?
I said nothing about people being prevented from voting.
I think that any process that makes it more likely that someone to vote is preferable for one that does not.
What do you think?
So they work within set parameters?
What data is inaccurate before they decide on boundaries?
Whatever constituency you happen to fall in it does not stop you registering. Even if yours changes you just register in your new one. If in doubt check.
Why does it affect Labour differently to other parties
Does it make logical sense that the most accurate voter data now will provide the best information for redrawing boundaries?
That's a completely neutral question. You must be able to answer that directly.
If you are not recording 9 million voters then you cannot draw boundaries correctly right?
I said nothing anywhere about being prevented from voting.
Once again, I think that any process that makes it more likely that someone to vote is preferable for one that does not.
What do you think?
I didn't mention Labour. I said that reduction in the votes of the young or the poor tended to favour the Tory party.
Do you disagree?
I did not say accurate data is not good. I asked what data is inaccurate BEFORE the boundary changes. So are you saying 9 million are not recorded before the boundary changes or will be after?. It's the individuals responsibility to make sure they are registered. If they do that then there is no problem. If they don't do it then it's down to them. Why do you say the poor and young will be affected more? Yes I disagree with you as I believe people have to take responsibility of their actions or in actions
There is a separate discussion about people's responsibility to register to vote if they wish and even distribution of population within a constituency.
You and I disagree over it being an inherent good that more people should vote. Fine.
Yes, several million people could be missing from voter registration. That is, undoubtedly, a maximum. That is because the paper system catches a lot of people who may otherwise not get around to registration because it is not an immediate priority and can easily be put off and forgotten.
If you don't believe that, then again how you view normal behaviour and priorities, particularly of younger people, is very different to my own.
The paper system currently maximises the accuracy of electoral data. Without replacing or supplementing this process then the data will be less accurate.
Where did I say it's not a good thing more people should vote? Where I disagree is I believe people need to take responsibility and not leave such things to the state. As many have said the news of elections are unavoidable. If all these people you say are being left out took a few minutes to register and vote then we would have better turnouts which I welcome
So you do think it is a good thing that more people should vote?
You haven't actually responded to that question have you?
I think any opportunity the state or any other organisation provides to encourage this is good.
You do not. You call it "taking responsibility" but you disagree with money being spent specifically to encourage this.
The fact that this direct mailing also provides the most accurate measure of voter location is also of no importance to you with respect to setting constituency boundaries.
Got it
Yes of course and I have never said otherwise despite your false claims.
Where we disagree is how that should be be achieved.
At what point did I mention money? Yet again its you making things up.
So to directly answer your question NO I do not think its up to the state I think people should take responsibility. I they want to vote register or check the register and vote. The elections are very well covered so no excuse for people who actually want to vote making sure they can
GOT IT
So you do agree that the government should take all necessary steps to both encourage voting and accurately assess the numbers of people eligible vote so as to accurately draw constituency boundaries?
We do not disagree at all in that case.
I apologise for any misunderstanding
I think you need to 're read my last post as I clearly said NO I don't think its up to the state instead it is people's responsibility to register or check the register and vote. The end goal of people voting we seem to agree. How we get there we disagree.
Right. So you do not think that as many people as possible should be encouraged to vote?
I have no idea of your opinion on achieving the most accurate data for drawing constituency boundaries.
If this accidentally means that the state encourages people to register to vote is that a good or a bad thing?
I can't help but be confused by what yoga re actually saying.
If you can't understand what I have said already I'm not sure you ever will. It would help if you stopped making false claims of what I said. It seems its not just me you do this to. Let me say once again NO I do not think the state should be responsible for people registering to vote I think its people's responsibility. It's not hard and very well publicised
How can you claim to support maximise voter registration and voting but not want it to be encouraged it in any way?
Look at my last post.
You also have no interest in the accuracy of drawing new constituency boundaries in a fair way either I guess...
I am giving my opinion on a forum and that is I think it is not up to the state to make sure people register its up to the people. If these people are keen to vote what more incentive do they need. If they can't be bothered its not the state's fault
I didn't say that it was "the state's fault".
It sounds like you are saying that you don't think that it's the state's responsibility to engage the electorate.
You don't think that will create a rather significant deficit in democratic legitimacy?
It means that the most successful route to power will be in ensuring voter apathy and only engaging the most extreme elements of the electorate.
Oh...wait...
No interest in fair constituency boundaries or is that just not of interest?
As I said if people want to register and vote they can. No problems at all. It's simple and easy. The elections are well publicised so no excuses for not doing it. It's down to the individual to take responsibility no one else
I understand, there is only one thing that you wish to discuss. Anything else is inconvenient.
Just consider that many people have a background very different to yours and the reasons for not registering to vote are many and varied. Some can be overcome.
I think that they should be and that actively increasing participation in democracy is a good think.
You, it seems, do not."If everyone that wants to vote can vote then I don't see a problem. As said its quick and easy. Fully publicised and unavoidable. Rich or poor everyone can vote. It's people's responsibility to do this | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Just consider that many people have a background very different to yours and the reasons for not registering to vote are many and varied. Some can be overcome. I think that they should be and that actively increasing participation in democracy is a good thing. You, it seems, do not. If everyone that wants to vote can vote then I don't see a problem. As said its quick and easy. Fully publicised and unavoidable. Rich or poor everyone can vote. It's people's responsibility to do this " I understand. As long as people like you can vote it's fine. Other people who live other lives who might not find it "quick and easy" aren't a concern. You have repeated that several times now | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Of the 30 smallest voter turnout constituencies in the 2019 GE, 21 were won by Labour. " Increasing voter turnout is good regardless. I have no party-political opinion on this regardless. The indications are that there are millions of "missing" electors who are not registered. That's not the same as low turnout which implies apathy from those who are registered. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Of the 30 smallest voter turnout constituencies in the 2019 GE, 21 were won by Labour. Increasing voter turnout is good regardless. I have no party-political opinion on this regardless. The indications are that there are millions of "missing" electors who are not registered. That's not the same as low turnout which implies apathy from those who are registered." The thing that would increase voter turnout would be moving politics on from the state it is in. Personally I blame the media for that, the presenter in most cases seem to think THEY are the star, the printed press produce stories that are so far removed from the truth half the time they would be better off in the fiction section of the local library, their pattern is boost up the latest flavour of the day and then when they are in position proceed to tear them down again, it makes no difference which side of the political spectrum they are on. Anyone who doubts this only needs to read papers from any point before the 70's to see the difference. The ease or not of registering has absolutely nothing to do with it, the fact that the OP thinks it does shows how far out of touch those that have an interest in politics are. Most people are sick to death with all involved in politics, that is the problem | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Of the 30 smallest voter turnout constituencies in the 2019 GE, 21 were won by Labour. Increasing voter turnout is good regardless. I have no party-political opinion on this regardless. The indications are that there are millions of "missing" electors who are not registered. That's not the same as low turnout which implies apathy from those who are registered." To get a vote, you need to have a registered address. Last GE, many that didnt have an address, were able to use pubs, cafes and citizen advice bureaus, that had signed up to help. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Of the 30 smallest voter turnout constituencies in the 2019 GE, 21 were won by Labour. Increasing voter turnout is good regardless. I have no party-political opinion on this regardless. The indications are that there are millions of "missing" electors who are not registered. That's not the same as low turnout which implies apathy from those who are registered. The thing that would increase voter turnout would be moving politics on from the state it is in. Personally I blame the media for that, the presenter in most cases seem to think THEY are the star, the printed press produce stories that are so far removed from the truth half the time they would be better off in the fiction section of the local library, their pattern is boost up the latest flavour of the day and then when they are in position proceed to tear them down again, it makes no difference which side of the political spectrum they are on. Anyone who doubts this only needs to read papers from any point before the 70's to see the difference. The ease or not of registering has absolutely nothing to do with it, the fact that the OP thinks it does shows how far out of touch those that have an interest in politics are. Most people are sick to death with all involved in politics, that is the problem " You have missed the point. You have also not read the article. Thank you for your input | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Of the 30 smallest voter turnout constituencies in the 2019 GE, 21 were won by Labour. Increasing voter turnout is good regardless. I have no party-political opinion on this regardless. The indications are that there are millions of "missing" electors who are not registered. That's not the same as low turnout which implies apathy from those who are registered. The thing that would increase voter turnout would be moving politics on from the state it is in. Personally I blame the media for that, the presenter in most cases seem to think THEY are the star, the printed press produce stories that are so far removed from the truth half the time they would be better off in the fiction section of the local library, their pattern is boost up the latest flavour of the day and then when they are in position proceed to tear them down again, it makes no difference which side of the political spectrum they are on. Anyone who doubts this only needs to read papers from any point before the 70's to see the difference. The ease or not of registering has absolutely nothing to do with it, the fact that the OP thinks it does shows how far out of touch those that have an interest in politics are. Most people are sick to death with all involved in politics, that is the problem You have missed the point. You have also not read the article. Thank you for your input "And that my friend is why people dont bother to engage, the clever ones dismiss any view that isnt their own, it's why brexit happened and why trump got elected. It's very noticeable that you did not engage in trying to refute my point but just resorted to sarcasm, I had responded several times that If you want to vote it's very simple the point is too many cant be arsed partly because of the high and mighty attitude of those who think they are clever. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Just consider that many people have a background very different to yours and the reasons for not registering to vote are many and varied. Some can be overcome. I think that they should be and that actively increasing participation in democracy is a good thing. You, it seems, do not. If everyone that wants to vote can vote then I don't see a problem. As said its quick and easy. Fully publicised and unavoidable. Rich or poor everyone can vote. It's people's responsibility to do this I understand. As long as people like you can vote it's fine. Other people who live other lives who might not find it "quick and easy" aren't a concern. You have repeated that several times now "As usual you deliberately misrepresent what I wrote I clearly said if everyone that wants to vote can vote its not a problem | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Of the 30 smallest voter turnout constituencies in the 2019 GE, 21 were won by Labour. Increasing voter turnout is good regardless. I have no party-political opinion on this regardless. The indications are that there are millions of "missing" electors who are not registered. That's not the same as low turnout which implies apathy from those who are registered. The thing that would increase voter turnout would be moving politics on from the state it is in. Personally I blame the media for that, the presenter in most cases seem to think THEY are the star, the printed press produce stories that are so far removed from the truth half the time they would be better off in the fiction section of the local library, their pattern is boost up the latest flavour of the day and then when they are in position proceed to tear them down again, it makes no difference which side of the political spectrum they are on. Anyone who doubts this only needs to read papers from any point before the 70's to see the difference. The ease or not of registering has absolutely nothing to do with it, the fact that the OP thinks it does shows how far out of touch those that have an interest in politics are. Most people are sick to death with all involved in politics, that is the problem You have missed the point. You have also not read the article. Thank you for your input
And that my friend is why people dont bother to engage, the clever ones dismiss any view that isnt their own, it's why brexit happened and why trump got elected. It's very noticeable that you did not engage in trying to refute my point but just resorted to sarcasm, I had responded several times that If you want to vote it's very simple the point is too many cant be arsed partly because of the high and mighty attitude of those who think they are clever."What was the point? Did you read the article? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Just consider that many people have a background very different to yours and the reasons for not registering to vote are many and varied. Some can be overcome. I think that they should be and that actively increasing participation in democracy is a good thing. You, it seems, do not. If everyone that wants to vote can vote then I don't see a problem. As said its quick and easy. Fully publicised and unavoidable. Rich or poor Forget I understand. As long as people like you can vote it's fine. Other people who live other lives who might not find it "quick and easy" aren't a concern. You have repeated that several times now
As usual you deliberately misrepresent what I wrote
I clearly said if everyone that wants to vote can vote its not a problem
""Deliberately misrepresent you"? Forget the metronomic repetition of the fact that everyone CAN vote and it is THEIR responsibility to vote. Is it possible that some people find it neither quick nor easy to vote? That they find the thought of even starting that process difficult or intimidating? Is it an inherently good thing that they should be encouraged to vote? Is it an inherently good thing that people in general should be encouraged to vote in a democracy? These are yes or no answers. Write yes or no next to the question and then explain why. You don't even have to do it on this thread, but it may help focus your mind and understand the point. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Just consider that many people have a background very different to yours and the reasons for not registering to vote are many and varied. Some can be overcome. I think that they should be and that actively increasing participation in democracy is a good thing. You, it seems, do not. If everyone that wants to vote can vote then I don't see a problem. As said its quick and easy. Fully publicised and unavoidable. Rich or poor Forget I understand. As long as people like you can vote it's fine. Other people who live other lives who might not find it "quick and easy" aren't a concern. You have repeated that several times now
As usual you deliberately misrepresent what I wrote
I clearly said if everyone that wants to vote can vote its not a problem
"Deliberately misrepresent you"?
Forget the metronomic repetition of the fact that everyone CAN vote and it is THEIR responsibility to vote.
Is it possible that some people find it neither quick nor easy to vote? That they find the thought of even starting that process difficult or intimidating?
Is it an inherently good thing that they should be encouraged to vote?
Is it an inherently good thing that people in general should be encouraged to vote in a democracy?
These are yes or no answers.
Write yes or no next to the question and then explain why.
You don't even have to do it on this thread, but it may help focus your mind and understand the point."Yes deliberately misrepresent me and you know it. I'm not the only one you do this to so I guess I should be thankful for that. I have repeated the fact that everyone that wants to vote can vote because it is true but you seem to miss it. It is also very easy to do. This sentence answers your questions regardless if you don't agree with it. It does seem you are already trying to find excuses in can Labour do not win the next election | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Just consider that many people have a background very different to yours and the reasons for not registering to vote are many and varied. Some can be overcome. I think that they should be and that actively increasing participation in democracy is a good thing. You, it seems, do not. If everyone that wants to vote can vote then I don't see a problem. As said its quick and easy. Fully publicised and unavoidable. Rich or poor Forget I understand. As long as people like you can vote it's fine. Other people who live other lives who might not find it "quick and easy" aren't a concern. You have repeated that several times now
As usual you deliberately misrepresent what I wrote
I clearly said if everyone that wants to vote can vote its not a problem
"Deliberately misrepresent you"?
Forget the metronomic repetition of the fact that everyone CAN vote and it is THEIR responsibility to vote.
Is it possible that some people find it neither quick nor easy to vote? That they find the thought of even starting that process difficult or intimidating?
Is it an inherently good thing that they should be encouraged to vote?
Is it an inherently good thing that people in general should be encouraged to vote in a democracy?
These are yes or no answers.
Write yes or no next to the question and then explain why.
You don't even have to do it on this thread, but it may help focus your mind and understand the point.
Yes deliberately misrepresent me and you know it. I'm not the only one you do this to so I guess I should be thankful for that.
I have repeated the fact that everyone that wants to vote can vote because it is true but you seem to miss it. It is also very easy to do. This sentence answers your questions regardless if you don't agree with it. It does seem you are already trying to find excuses in can Labour do not win the next election"It does not "answer" my question at all. Writing yes or no next to the questions and explaining why would do that. You don't even have to explain. You seem unable to but insist on accusing me of "misrepresenting" you. That's just weird. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Where the US leads we follow. More major changes being introduced without adequate oversight whilst in the middle of a pandemic. Up to 9 million voters, most likely to be non Tory voting, being left off the electoral roles in contradiction to recommendations. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/voter-registration-electoral-roll-conservatives-government-boundary-changes-a9575451.html" 9 million voters - are you sure? Why are they non Tory only. How are you judging who they vote for | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Just consider that many people have a background very different to yours and the reasons for not registering to vote are many and varied. Some can be overcome. I think that they should be and that actively increasing participation in democracy is a good thing. You, it seems, do not. If everyone that wants to vote can vote then I don't see a problem. As said its quick and easy. Fully publicised and unavoidable. Rich or poor Forget I understand. As long as people like you can vote it's fine. Other people who live other lives who might not find it "quick and easy" aren't a concern. You have repeated that several times now
As usual you deliberately misrepresent what I wrote
I clearly said if everyone that wants to vote can vote its not a problem
"Deliberately misrepresent you"?
Forget the metronomic repetition of the fact that everyone CAN vote and it is THEIR responsibility to vote.
Is it possible that some people find it neither quick nor easy to vote? That they find the thought of even starting that process difficult or intimidating?
Is it an inherently good thing that they should be encouraged to vote?
Is it an inherently good thing that people in general should be encouraged to vote in a democracy?
These are yes or no answers.
Write yes or no next to the question and then explain why.
You don't even have to do it on this thread, but it may help focus your mind and understand the point.
Yes deliberately misrepresent me and you know it. I'm not the only one you do this to so I guess I should be thankful for that.
I have repeated the fact that everyone that wants to vote can vote because it is true but you seem to miss it. It is also very easy to do. This sentence answers your questions regardless if you don't agree with it. It does seem you are already trying to find excuses in can Labour do not win the next election
It does not "answer" my question at all.
Writing yes or no next to the questions and explaining why would do that. You don't even have to explain.
You seem unable to but insist on accusing me of "misrepresenting" you.
That's just weird."I accuse you of it because its what you done and here in black and white. You know it as you do it regularly. My answer does answer your questions its just its not what you want to hear | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Just consider that many people have a background very different to yours and the reasons for not registering to vote are many and varied. Some can be overcome. I think that they should be and that actively increasing participation in democracy is a good thing. You, it seems, do not. If everyone that wants to vote can vote then I don't see a problem. As said its quick and easy. Fully publicised and unavoidable. Rich or poor Forget I understand. As long as people like you can vote it's fine. Other people who live other lives who might not find it "quick and easy" aren't a concern. You have repeated that several times now
As usual you deliberately misrepresent what I wrote
I clearly said if everyone that wants to vote can vote its not a problem
"Deliberately misrepresent you"?
Forget the metronomic repetition of the fact that everyone CAN vote and it is THEIR responsibility to vote.
Is it possible that some people find it neither quick nor easy to vote? That they find the thought of even starting that process difficult or intimidating?
Is it an inherently good thing that they should be encouraged to vote?
Is it an inherently good thing that people in general should be encouraged to vote in a democracy?
These are yes or no answers.
Write yes or no next to the question and then explain why.
You don't even have to do it on this thread, but it may help focus your mind and understand the point.
Yes deliberately misrepresent me and you know it. I'm not the only one you do this to so I guess I should be thankful for that.
I have repeated the fact that everyone that wants to vote can vote because it is true but you seem to miss it. It is also very easy to do. This sentence answers your questions regardless if you don't agree with it. It does seem you are already trying to find excuses in can Labour do not win the next election
It does not "answer" my question at all.
Writing yes or no next to the questions and explaining why would do that. You don't even have to explain.
You seem unable to but insist on accusing me of "misrepresenting" you.
That's just weird.
I accuse you of it because its what you done and here in black and white. You know it as you do it regularly. My answer does answer your questions its just its not what you want to hear"Is it possible that some people find it neither quick nor easy to vote? Yes/no? That they find the thought of even starting that process difficult or intimidating? Yes/no? Is it an inherently good thing that they should be encouraged to vote? Yes/no? Is it an inherently good thing that people in general should be encouraged to vote in a democracy? Yes/no? Answer them now or cut and paste where you did. Perhaps you don't actually understand the questions? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Where the US leads we follow. More major changes being introduced without adequate oversight whilst in the middle of a pandemic. Up to 9 million voters, most likely to be non Tory voting, being left off the electoral roles in contradiction to recommendations. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/voter-registration-electoral-roll-conservatives-government-boundary-changes-a9575451.html 9 million voters - are you sure? Why are they non Tory only. How are you judging who they vote for" No. I am not "sure". It is an estimate. Of that estimate the report ask estimates that they are mainly younger and poorer voters. The statistics indicate that they are less likely to vote Tory. That happens to be the flavour of this government. If a Labour government shifted the goalposts by action or inaction in a similar way it would be equally bad. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Just consider that many people have a background very different to yours and the reasons for not registering to vote are many and varied. Some can be overcome. I think that they should be and that actively increasing participation in democracy is a good thing. You, it seems, do not. If everyone that wants to vote can vote then I don't see a problem. As said its quick and easy. Fully publicised and unavoidable. Rich or poor Forget I understand. As long as people like you can vote it's fine. Other people who live other lives who might not find it "quick and easy" aren't a concern. You have repeated that several times now
As usual you deliberately misrepresent what I wrote
I clearly said if everyone that wants to vote can vote its not a problem
"Deliberately misrepresent you"?
Forget the metronomic repetition of the fact that everyone CAN vote and it is THEIR responsibility to vote.
Is it possible that some people find it neither quick nor easy to vote? That they find the thought of even starting that process difficult or intimidating?
Is it an inherently good thing that they should be encouraged to vote?
Is it an inherently good thing that people in general should be encouraged to vote in a democracy?
These are yes or no answers.
Write yes or no next to the question and then explain why.
You don't even have to do it on this thread, but it may help focus your mind and understand the point.
Yes deliberately misrepresent me and you know it. I'm not the only one you do this to so I guess I should be thankful for that.
I have repeated the fact that everyone that wants to vote can vote because it is true but you seem to miss it. It is also very easy to do. This sentence answers your questions regardless if you don't agree with it. It does seem you are already trying to find excuses in can Labour do not win the next election
It does not "answer" my question at all.
Writing yes or no next to the questions and explaining why would do that. You don't even have to explain.
You seem unable to but insist on accusing me of "misrepresenting" you.
That's just weird.
I accuse you of it because its what you done and here in black and white. You know it as you do it regularly. My answer does answer your questions its just its not what you want to hear
Is it possible that some people find it neither quick nor easy to vote?
Yes/no?
That they find the thought of even starting that process difficult or intimidating?
Yes/no?
Is it an inherently good thing that they should be encouraged to vote?
Yes/no?
Is it an inherently good thing that people in general should be encouraged to vote in a democracy?
Yes/no?
Answer them now or cut and paste where you did.
Perhaps you don't actually understand the questions?"For gods sake stop being so bloody patronising. Your questions have been answered, you don't like the answer so you demand answers again and again and again and tell people they have to answer using only the words you allow so that you can try to twist the answer to what you want. Voters are not being "supressed" anyone is able to vote if they wish to with no restrictions, it doesn't "benefit" any particular party it's just a bit of a revamp. It's no more severe than when they told me I don't get a paper bill for my phone line anymore, it was more convenient to get the bit of paper, but in no way prevents me owning a line or paying my bill. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Where the US leads we follow. More major changes being introduced without adequate oversight whilst in the middle of a pandemic. Up to 9 million voters, most likely to be non Tory voting, being left off the electoral roles in contradiction to recommendations. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/voter-registration-electoral-roll-conservatives-government-boundary-changes-a9575451.html 9 million voters - are you sure? Why are they non Tory only. How are you judging who they vote for No. I am not "sure". It is an estimate. Of that estimate the report ask estimates that they are mainly younger and poorer voters. The statistics indicate that they are less likely to vote Tory. That happens to be the flavour of this government. If a Labour government shifted the goalposts by action or inaction in a similar way it would be equally bad." labour changed the boundarys to favour them the last time they were in power.swings and roundabouts mate.have read through this yhread and far as i can see peeps have answerd your question u just dont seem to like the way yhey answered it.surprised your still flogging this dead horse | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Just consider that many people have a background very different to yours and the reasons for not registering to vote are many and varied. Some can be overcome. I think that they should be and that actively increasing participation in democracy is a good thing. You, it seems, do not. If everyone that wants to vote can vote then I don't see a problem. As said its quick and easy. Fully publicised and unavoidable. Rich or poor Forget I understand. As long as people like you can vote it's fine. Other people who live other lives who might not find it "quick and easy" aren't a concern. You have repeated that several times now
As usual you deliberately misrepresent what I wrote
I clearly said if everyone that wants to vote can vote its not a problem
"Deliberately misrepresent you"?
Forget the metronomic repetition of the fact that everyone CAN vote and it is THEIR responsibility to vote.
Is it possible that some people find it neither quick nor easy to vote? That they find the thought of even starting that process difficult or intimidating?
Is it an inherently good thing that they should be encouraged to vote?
Is it an inherently good thing that people in general should be encouraged to vote in a democracy?
These are yes or no answers.
Write yes or no next to the question and then explain why.
You don't even have to do it on this thread, but it may help focus your mind and understand the point.
Yes deliberately misrepresent me and you know it. I'm not the only one you do this to so I guess I should be thankful for that.
I have repeated the fact that everyone that wants to vote can vote because it is true but you seem to miss it. It is also very easy to do. This sentence answers your questions regardless if you don't agree with it. It does seem you are already trying to find excuses in can Labour do not win the next election
It does not "answer" my question at all.
Writing yes or no next to the questions and explaining why would do that. You don't even have to explain.
You seem unable to but insist on accusing me of "misrepresenting" you.
That's just weird.
I accuse you of it because its what you done and here in black and white. You know it as you do it regularly. My answer does answer your questions its just its not what you want to hear
Is it possible that some people find it neither quick nor easy to vote?
Yes/no?
That they find the thought of even starting that process difficult or intimidating?
Yes/no?
Is it an inherently good thing that they should be encouraged to vote?
Yes/no?
Is it an inherently good thing that people in general should be encouraged to vote in a democracy?
Yes/no?
Answer them now or cut and paste where you did.
Perhaps you don't actually understand the questions?"It seems you don't understand the answer or what's more likely and mentioned by others you just don't like the answer.everyone that's wants to vote can vote. Even on the article you mention it says its now easier than ever to do and the 2019 election was contested on the largest ever electoral register | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Just consider that many people have a background very different to yours and the reasons for not registering to vote are many and varied. Some can be overcome. I think that they should be and that actively increasing participation in democracy is a good thing. You, it seems, do not. If everyone that wants to vote can vote then I don't see a problem. As said its quick and easy. Fully publicised and unavoidable. Rich or poor Forget I understand. As long as people like you can vote it's fine. Other people who live other lives who might not find it "quick and easy" aren't a concern. You have repeated that several times now
As usual you deliberately misrepresent what I wrote
I clearly said if everyone that wants to vote can vote its not a problem
"Deliberately misrepresent you"?
Forget the metronomic repetition of the fact that everyone CAN vote and it is THEIR responsibility to vote.
Is it possible that some people find it neither quick nor easy to vote? That they find the thought of even starting that process difficult or intimidating?
Is it an inherently good thing that they should be encouraged to vote?
Is it an inherently good thing that people in general should be encouraged to vote in a democracy?
These are yes or no answers.
Write yes or no next to the question and then explain why.
You don't even have to do it on this thread, but it may help focus your mind and understand the point.
Yes deliberately misrepresent me and you know it. I'm not the only one you do this to so I guess I should be thankful for that.
I have repeated the fact that everyone that wants to vote can vote because it is true but you seem to miss it. It is also very easy to do. This sentence answers your questions regardless if you don't agree with it. It does seem you are already trying to find excuses in can Labour do not win the next election
It does not "answer" my question at all.
Writing yes or no next to the questions and explaining why would do that. You don't even have to explain.
You seem unable to but insist on accusing me of "misrepresenting" you.
That's just weird.
I accuse you of it because its what you done and here in black and white. You know it as you do it regularly. My answer does answer your questions its just its not what you want to hear
Is it possible that some people find it neither quick nor easy to vote?
Yes/no?
That they find the thought of even starting that process difficult or intimidating?
Yes/no?
Is it an inherently good thing that they should be encouraged to vote?
Yes/no?
Is it an inherently good thing that people in general should be encouraged to vote in a democracy?
Yes/no?
Answer them now or cut and paste where you did.
Perhaps you don't actually understand the questions?
For gods sake stop being so bloody patronising. Your questions have been answered, you don't like the answer so you demand answers again and again and again and tell people they have to answer using only the words you allow so that you can try to twist the answer to what you want. Voters are not being "supressed" anyone is able to vote if they wish to with no restrictions, it doesn't "benefit" any particular party it's just a bit of a revamp. It's no more severe than when they told me I don't get a paper bill for my phone line anymore, it was more convenient to get the bit of paper, but in no way prevents me owning a line or paying my bill." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Where the US leads we follow. More major changes being introduced without adequate oversight whilst in the middle of a pandemic. Up to 9 million voters, most likely to be non Tory voting, being left off the electoral roles in contradiction to recommendations. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/voter-registration-electoral-roll-conservatives-government-boundary-changes-a9575451.html 9 million voters - are you sure? Why are they non Tory only. How are you judging who they vote for No. I am not "sure". It is an estimate. Of that estimate the report ask estimates that they are mainly younger and poorer voters. The statistics indicate that they are less likely to vote Tory. That happens to be the flavour of this government. If a Labour government shifted the goalposts by action or inaction in a similar way it would be equally bad. labour changed the boundarys to favour them the last time they were in power.swings and roundabouts mate.have read through this yhread and far as i can see peeps have answerd your question u just dont seem to like the way yhey answered it.surprised your still flogging this dead horse" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Where the US leads we follow. More major changes being introduced without adequate oversight whilst in the middle of a pandemic. Up to 9 million voters, most likely to be non Tory voting, being left off the electoral roles in contradiction to recommendations. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/voter-registration-electoral-roll-conservatives-government-boundary-changes-a9575451.html 9 million voters - are you sure? Why are they non Tory only. How are you judging who they vote for No. I am not "sure". It is an estimate. Of that estimate the report ask estimates that they are mainly younger and poorer voters. The statistics indicate that they are less likely to vote Tory. That happens to be the flavour of this government. If a Labour government shifted the goalposts by action or inaction in a similar way it would be equally bad." Oh an estimate and assuming people vote in certain ways. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seeing as you decided to write a lengtly paragraph (presumably to discourage me from replying) I am going to quote and respond to them individually - "You are only interested in the political argument here it seems. That is where we differ." - It is a politicl process and as you decided to use, and insist that everyone reads, an article filled with quotes from labour that are criticising the tories that is how I shall reply to it. "I have not mentioned any party difference have I?" - Not directly. However, for the reasons I have stated above all I have to say to that is Meh. "The government in power is putting a system in place that appears likely to bias the electoral system in it's favour." That is corruption whoever does it." - You still haven`t said why this swings things in favour of the tories, or how exactly it is corruption. As you are adamant that this is the case you should detail what exactly the changes in both boundaries and process will lead to this outcome. Also, I am also not convinced that if it was another party in place of the tories you would be as quick and determined to find fault, however this is merely my opinion. "Is that true?" - As above, show how this is corruption. You claim this move targets a section of society that is likely to vote labour but if they aren't even registering to vote these people wont be voting in the first place. "They are also seeking to have no democratic oversight of this process. Is that acceptable to you?" - For starters, is that even true? In your own link it says "Previously, the Boundary Commissions’ proposals would have been scrutinised and voted on by MPs, but they will now become law automatically – under a separate, also controversial switch.". This doesn't sound like the tories being free to do as they wish does it? more like the independent commission being given more power to do as they deem necessary. "Claiming that the recommendation of an independent body gives "labour zealots a voice" is completely made up and sounds just a little paranoid don't you think?" - Try reading what I said rather than what you think I said/want people to believe I said. I said the ARTICLE gives a voice to them but don't let that get in the way of your bullshit, I mean you even went as far as using your misquote to claim I am paranoid (which is 100% textbook strawmanning btw... and gaslighting) "Again, if boundaries are to be redrawn they should use the most accurate electoral data. You setbased on those eligible to vote because it is not possible to say who will choose to vote at any given time." - you have just shown that the process is basically a `best guess` as it stands. I also question the legitimacy of including people that have no interests in voting. "Government saying that they "want as many people to register to vote as possible" but acting in contradiction to recommendations of the organisation that is set up to ensure that is quite demonstrative." - if we are using snippets to prove wild claims then the organisation to which you refer has shown behaviour that could be considered "demonstrative" of bias and ineptness. You disagree with the statement anyway. You have said so." - Would you care to clarify which statement and where I have disagreed with it? "You do not believe that anything should be done to encourage people to register to vote even though you claim to want as many people to vote as possible. You can understand that, right?" - I understand that you are trying to tell me what I think despite me having addreseed this to the contrary. Not being bothered that postal reminders are no longer being sent is quite different to "not believing anything should be done to encourage" "You seem genuinely unable to empathise with people different to you. There is a whole range of reasons that people don't vote. Not caring really is not the the only reason. Stating that is purely your assertion, correct?" - What reasons? The only reasons I can see is either apathy or a protest against process, policies or candidates. We could also add laziness or an avoidance of being on the electoral register to avoid debt collectors etc, however I would include them in apathy. Either way a postal reminder would not change their stance. "I did not say a postal reminder is the only thing that would encourage people to register. It is one. Removing it with nothing else being done to replace it or improve the situation just makes things a little worse. That is the Electoral Commission view." - In my opinion you are placing too much value on postal reminders. I dispute their effectiveness and necessity. "You appear to have a purely partisan view of this and have no regard whatsoever for people who live a life different to yours." - It is not that I have no regard for people that "live a different life", my point is that whatever life they live it is their personal responsibility and choice to engage. My views and statement are not through affiliation with one party, they are due to not agreeing with your claims. "You will undoubtedly need to have the last word so all I will say is that if an independent body gives recommendations on the process fundamental to the democratic process, the government of the day should follow those recommendations unless they provide a very good reason not to." - You have already in this topic whittered on about me having the last word and you then proceded to come back, to have the last word. (as predicted by another poster) This appears to be more projection from you as I do not care about having the last word. I am just responding to your `points`. "They should also make that process transparent and open to democratic oversight. That is not what is happening." - once again I will refer you to the fact that the boundary commission is an independent body and the tories are giving them the power to make the changes they want, without having to listen to politicians that only have their self interest in mind. I will also ask, what is being hidden to make this process non transparent?" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
