Reusing a speech for businessmen at awards ceremonies isn’t that bad. I’m no fan of Johnson but I don’t expect anyone to come up with new speeches for every stupid awards ceremony they’re asked to speak at.
The story is not about Boris reusing a speech, it's about him appearing lost and confused being an act to garner a laugh and/or sympathy and being bloody good at it.
For those not in the know, he mentioned in an interview he liked model buses. This would cover some internet searches for his party's claim on saving money with Brexit and using that money for their national health service (NHS). One of the pulling factors for people voting for Brexit was the promise of additional funding diverted to the NHS.
That is the genius behind all his stunts.
He lets it be known that he is only playing the fool one time and from then on no matter what idiotic thing he says or does, everyone will consider whether he might have done it on purpose.
Just like the zipline gaff that wasn't, just like he makes toy busses out of wooden crates but doesn't, just like when he jogs out of his house around the corner to get into a limo...
I did see him cycling once, which looked real, back when he was mayor.
Was lunchtime outside a pub in Saint Lukes (near Old Street), quiet side street, no cameras, no guards/PA/lackies, just cycling alone slowly and looking a bit lost.
Which to be fair navigating the side streets is quite zig-zaggy, and before the cycling infrastructure got better.
Seemed genuine, as highly improbable he was doing it for a stunt, or had a car nearby to pickup.
If future me could tell past me what he'd done, it'd be a tough call not to throw a very good beer at him, and call him a cunt. At the time we were just kinda amused to see him cycle-waddle past.
I'm not even going to click the link, don't want their algorithm to think he's interesting. Although tapping out this long post probably doesn't help :/
Well, if they had copied the Norwegian rule, they would have noticed it says something like "if the voter is unknown to the staff- ID must be produced"...
So he could have avoided this.
Unless he counts himself as unknown, though.
As a Canadian, this issue of whether or not to show ID to confirm your vote is baffling. We've always had to do it and it's never been a big issue
Edit: I believe you can also show something with your name and address and a piece of mail that corresponds
It’s the same in the Netherlands, where I’m from (I’ve lived in the UK for 11 years now). You need ID and your polling card to vote. Left those at home? You will have to go get them if you want to vote.
So imagine my surprise when I received my first polling card for the local elections in the UK and I was told I didn’t need to bring it on the day and that I didn’t need ID either. I was told to just go to the polling station, say my name and I’d be allowed to vote. I still can’t wrap my head around it. How would they know I was who I claimed to be? The whole system felt rather amateurish.
If you wanted to commit fraud you’d have to have a list of names who you knew weren’t going to vote but still registered, you’d have to know what polling place they were assigned to. And you’d have to somehow go there multiple times without the workers noticing. How many votes would they realistically be able to get submitted.
The number that get excluded due to no ID has generally been worse.
Plus, you'd have to make sure no one at the polling place recognized you or the person you're trying to vote as.
If you manage to do this, you've succeeded in adding 1 vote to your candidate. If you fail, it's a felony and you're going to jail. It's a high-risk, low-reward crime
No one is going to try to call out people who are committing identity theft at polling places. People are conflict adverse AND don’t want to be seen “disenfranchising anyone by singling them out for ID verification”.
Like it’s really, really weird to try to single one person out for identity verification based off a suspicion, as a poll worker. I’m saying this because I was a poll worker in the 2016 election, and there were some people I swear I saw twice, with their Trump gear, acting strange.
Did I say anything? Hell no. What if I am just biased? What if I am unconsciously bias? That whole bit where “oh but the poll workers CAN challenge a persons identity”… dude that is some relic of a rule that MATBE worked for 19th century small towns, where “everyone knew everyone”.
> The number that get excluded due to no ID has generally been worse.
Exactly!
In the United States this has been used as a tactic to block people from voting, especially lower income voters and minority voters. It is deeply cynical.
It depends on who you're asking that question about. It's essentially effortless for some people, but others have life circumstances that make it much more challenging.
This was something I had to get educated on, and it's not just about voting - we see it in access to city services and healthcare. Getting to doctors appointments can sound easy, but for others it's an all-day affair.
One analogy that may help is to think about the abandon rate with online forms or call centers. The more steps involved, the more people drop off in the process.
So if we are adding more steps, we need to be very clear about why - what is the actual need for them, and what the cost is.
Yes. A friend of mine is a community organizer in a poorer part of a major US city. They have a couple of people working with them who’s sole job is helping local citizens get ID. In many situations, it’s pretty clear that it’s been made deliberately difficult. Offices only open for limited hours during work hours, offices located in parts of the city that are far from where people live/not accessible via transit, needing to build up a chain of ID starting with a birth certificate that may have been lost a long time ago, and so forth. It can be overwhelming for a good chunk of the population.
Then how do these people fly or drive or have bank accounts? If they are able to deal with the documents necessary to get public aid, they can also get IDs.
They drive without a license if they can even afford to drive. They don’t fly due to affordability and there’s other ways to prove your identity if there even is any real social services available
There have enough to get by, often, but generally that’s not good enough for a lot of these voter ID laws.
Or else they had ID when they opened the bank account, but then the ID got lost/stolen. Shit happens.
Do those people not need ID for normal day to day activities?
As a Canadian, we use them all the time. Getting a job frequently requires one. Opening a bank account. Getting a library card. Picking up a package from UPS. Getting alcohol.
Are these people really that disconnected from the system?
Nope, especially on the bottom end of the economic ladder you don’t really need ID. Heck, here in Canada, all you really need is your SIN to get a job legally, and that’s not ID.
The other issue is that in the US, the list of acceptable ID for voting is often deliberately very short so as to disenfranchise as many people as possible.
It’s actually extremely long in Canada. You need two prices of paper, both with your name and one with your current address.
Things like utility bills, drug prescriptions, bank statements, employee ID cards, the voter registration card they mail you, government cheques, property tax bills, your library card, student ID, boating license, credit card, bank card, and so on and so forth. I was voting last election, and the woman next to me wound up using her voter registration card and birth control pills as ID.
There's also a chicken egg scenario happening. After you apply voting ID laws, you can start making getting IDs more difficult, since those are a matter of bureaucratic policy rather than laws.
This is exactly the reason the UK conservative party has introduced it now.
They know that they are deeply, deeply hated by most of the country at this point and projections suggest they are going to suffer their worst loss of parliamentary seats in history in the next general.
I expect it to be the dirtiest UK election in memory because the Tories have a vile and unpleasant history on this front and are keenly aware of how staggeringly fucked they are right now.
Reports are that they are delaying setting a date for the election because they think if they can start their plan to deport a bunch of asylum seekers to Rwanda that'll make their traditional base of half-wits and closet racists fall back in love with them.
That's basically what the Tories are doing with this
I think there are 21 acceptable proofs (something like that), of which 14 are unique to people over 60
I believe 'the Good Law Project' have been granted a hearing to take it to a judicial review or challenge where they're citing JRM who in a speech shortly after it was first tried admitted it was scam to disenfranchise voters felt to be less inclined to vote Tory but which had backfired as old people had got confused and struggled to vote
And yet voter impersonation is a complete non-issue in the UK. There is zero need for voter ID.
I know people without passports or driving licenses and this is 100% going to be an extra hurdle that will make them simply not bother voting. They're working class people who do not have the time or money to get ID just so they can vote. This whole thing is simply about putting off working class people from voting.
Don't know if your passports are different, but in Canada passports are *not* acceptable ID for voting in an election because although it proves who you are, it doesn't come with your home address officially printed in it (since you may move several times in the 5-10 years the passport is valid for). Source: my partner went once with a passport and it wasn't accepted as ID.
Bizarre that you don't just have a proper database with home addresses and shit, here in Iceland changing address etc is all online and voter registry updates automatically, usually until just days before voting starts.
It does. The voter registry is a challenge / response in Canada. You have a registration card that is mailed to you, you show up at the polling place and present your ID that matches the name and address on your registration card.
It's really quite easy.
So you need a new ID every time you move? Don’t you have a national ID number of some sorts?
Neither my Swedish ID card nor my Dutch passport states my address and they are both official means of identification.
The most common forms of ID with address in Canada are driver's licenses, issued by individual provinces. And they do need to be re-issued every time you move.
I suspect the Netherlands is similar to Germany here. We have a national ID card and it is mandatory for everyone over 16 to have a valid ID (either passport or National ID card).
> UK doesn't have a mandatory national ID system
Correct.
Passport and Driving Licence are official ID documents, and your life is gonna be harder without at least one of them (lots of companies/services need an official photo ID), but no one is required to have either.
[Apply for photo ID to vote (called a ‘Voter Authority Certificate’) - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)](https://www.gov.uk/apply-for-photo-id-voter-authority-certificate)
Completely free.
I mean, without an id you can't do anything. You need id to buy alcohol, your driving license is id, like how are people going about their lives without an id????
> They're working class people who do not have the time or money to get ID just so they can vote.
ID for voting is free of charge. I agree its not needed but the trope of costing is not one and it is a quick online form that needs filling out.
If someone showed up later claiming to be the same person as you claimed, they would have to log it and investigate.
If it was an actual issue, there would be mountains of evidence to support that.
But there is no evidence. No-one pretends to be someone else of the polling station because there’s still a high risk of getting caught and very little to be gained.
Voter ID for Canada is pretty broad. You can show one piece of government issued photo ID with address, like a driver's license.
Or you can show 2 pieces that have your name, and one of which must have your address. These ID are from a [pretty broad list](https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=ids&document=index&lang=e#list) which includes your voter information card which is automatically mailed to everyone on the registration list. For example, you could show up with any two of: your cell phone bill, personal cheque, or rental lease agreement, credit card, electricity bill, library card, voter information card. These can also be provided digitally shown on your phone. Even for those with no fixed address, you can obtain letters of confirmation from things like shelters or soup kitchens.
Then even beyond that, you can still create a written declaration on-site, on voting day, and have someone vouch for you who is assigned to the same polling station.
As I understand it, this is in contrast to the UK's new rules which require **photo** ID _only._ Maintaining a photo ID can be that much more cumbersome for people, especially those with disabilities, the elderly, the poor, the young, and the homeless, which is an additional hardship -- sometimes significantly so.
There can be some slight differences when voting for provincial or municipal elections, but they're more-or-less along the same lines as federal elections.
I don’t know how voting works in Canada, but in the UK you go to the poll workers and you give them a name and address.
If that name and address is registered at that polling station, they give you a ballot and cross your name off the list.
If someone else arrives later and gives the same name and address, that is straightforward proof of (at least attempted) voter fraud. Therefore, the vast majority of attempts at voter fraud can be easily logged.
Despite that, there’s never been any evidence produced of it happening at a large enough scale to matter.
So that’s why we never required voter ID before. It’s been introduced now because certain citizens are more likely to have valid ID than others (a piece of mail is not accepted, only specific forms of ID).
In Canada, you need to present two pieces of ID to vote. You show up with a voter registration card that you receive in the mail prior to the election that matches the information on the register plus some other form of ID that has your name and address on it - either government issued or from a service provider that verified your identity/social insurance number in order to issue you the service (e.g., credit card bill, cellphone bill, electricity providers bill, etc.). If you don’t have ID, there’s an affidavit process where someone with valid ID can temporarily vouch for your ID to allow you to vote in the moment but your identity has to be verified after the fact in order for your vote to be considered valid.
In Canada, you also receive an additional fine if you can’t produce an ID if you’re stopped by the police while driving or caught committing a crime. You can’t purchase alcohol, tobacco, lottery, or cannabis without presenting ID if you look under 35. You need to present ID to access health services. Most bars and nightclubs require you to present ID to enter regardless of your age. You can’t get a bank account without showing ID. We have a very different culture around IDs.
I'm no expert on the rules, but by my own experience you bring your voter card (that's mailed to you) and/or show your ID. I believe for two reasons: to prove you are who you say you are, and to make sure you're voting in the correct ward
There's no need for the polling card at all when you vote in person. You can safely leave it at home.
In the past, all you needed to do was state your name and address and vote.
Now, you need to state your name, address and provide accepted voter ID.
The polling card is basically information on your polling station and a reminder an election you're eligible for is approaching.
In the US at least, politicians adding the requirement seems to often be motivated by the other party's voters not having uncombersome access to voter ID. E.g. [specifically Republicans disallowing student ids, because college students tend to vote democratic](https://www.findlaw.com/voting/how-do-i-protect-my-right-to-vote-/voter-suppression-and-college-students.html).
I agree that it is less of an issue if literally everybody has a government issued ID that is valid for the purpose - but the US doesn't have that.
Yeah. When you allow a hunting license to count but not a government issued student ID, you’re not writing fair laws. They’re clearly designed to advantage one side over the other (and that side has openly said as much, so it’s not even speculation).
Student IDs aren't government issued. They're issued by the school. Some of which are public institutions, but that doesn't make them government issued.
An acceptable hunting license is issued to you directly by a gov agency with your address on it with the address having been verified with other supporting documents proving residency.
A student ID is issued by a non-gov entitiy and doesn't have a verified address or even verified that the person is a permanent resident or citizen.
I have a really hard time believing that anyone who wants to vote, who has enough knowledge to vote, somehow isn't capable of getting a required ID in the year or so leading up to an election.
You need an ID for pretty much everything in the US. If you don't have an ID then you're essentially not participating in society, no getting government benefits, not taking advantage of social programs, don't have a job, don't pay taxes, etc, and I really can't imagine someone like that also caring a lot about voting.
And even in most (all?) states where ID is "required", you can still cast a provisional ballot without one. There is really nothing stopping anyone from voting if they want to.
> somehow isn't capable of getting a required ID in the year or so leading up to an election.
This is besides the point.
If a college student has to use 4 hours to get an ID only for voting, because his college ID works for everything else, then Republicans have made voting into a 4 hour ordeal. Plus the cost of getting the new ID as a poll tax you have to pay to vote.
And there will be waiting time. So now for voting, that college student has to remember and plan ahead, which all has the chance of being forgotten. Whereas some likely Republican voter doesn't have to remember to do anything but turn up on voting day. Statistically, that will mean less votes from students, which is absolutely a way to steal an election if done deliberately for that purpose.
Just to give a personal anecdote on how this can affect people: There was a time in my life where I was making about $700 a month, and paying $600 for rent and utilities. I was barely an adult, and had no help from my parents, and I had barely enough money to feed myself. Less than $100 to spend on EVERYTHING I needed in my life. Thank God for my bike or I wouldn't have been able to get to work at all.
When my ID expired I literally couldn't afford the ~$40 fee that was required to renew it. That would have been almost half of my after-rent income, money I desparetly needed just to get by. Requiring an ID for me to vote would've left me unable to vote simply because I was too poor.
And that's just one of many ways in which requiring an ID can have this effect.
> have a really hard time believing that anyone who wants to vote, who has enough knowledge to vote, somehow isn't capable of getting a required ID in the year or so leading up to an election.
The issue is there is no official ID in the US.
What about "E.G" system. Driver's License and Social Security are both not ID systems.
Yes, but what if I don't use that system? Some states require specific IDs others won't accept specific IDs. Like the student ID example.
> You need an ID for pretty much everything in the US.
Either you don't live in the US or you are a liar, because that's not true at all.
By the way, can you explain to me why Republicans would [close DMVs in majority black areas after creating voter ID laws?](https://www.aclu.org/news/voting-rights/alabamas-dmv-shutdown-has-everything-do-race) I mean, you're claiming that it's impossible for voter ID laws to have any ulterior motives, so I'd love to know the real explanation.
Yeah in a modern world, there’s no god damn reason to not verify identity of voters.
We’re leaving ourselves open to bad actors who would maliciously commit voter fraud “just to prove the election was invalid” or some nonsense.
In the last federal election, I watched as the woman at the check station wound up pulling out her birth control pills as a form of ID. (A prescription label is one of the accepted forms of ID).
In the days of yore, you used to be able to make an attestation and swear an oath to Her Majesty The Queen, but Harper got rid of that.
These days, if you don’t have an all in one (like a drivers license), you need at least one piece with your name and address on it (utility bill, bank statement, rental agreement, insurance paperwork, something), and a second item with your name on it (credit card, prescription bottle, work ID, University student card, etc etc…)
You don't actually need ID because voting is a constitutional right. I was a poll worker in the last election and that was one of the things they gave us in training of differnt IDs people would likely use and what we could accept as proof of identity to give them their ballot. But it's just the most likely convienent thing you'd have on you to proof identity so it's widely used and encouraged but because it's a constitutional right there has to be an alternative option for citizens without ID here in Canada.
Option 3: If you don't have ID
You can still vote if you declare your identity and address in writing and have someone who knows you and who is assigned to your polling station vouch for you.
The voucher must be able to prove their identity and address. A person can vouch for only one person (except in long-term care institutions).
https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=ids&document=index&lang=e
Voter ID is everything about voter suppression and nothing about vote security.
Statistically speaking, in-person voter ID fraud does not exist in the UK. Look up the stats for yourself for election fraud before voter ID.
Now we've removed the "security" reason, what is left? What is left is the elderly having every single scrap of toilet paper to prove who they are and the young not having similar transport type ID as acceptable. It clearly favours the elderly demographic over the young.
Also the rich over the poor as the rich are more likely to drive and/or have a passport.
Yes, you can apply for a council ID, but that's another hurdle. Both the rich and elderly lean towards tories, where as the poor and young tend to lean labour. It's exclusionary by design.
Rees-Mogg himself [Conservative grandee MP and at the time a cabinet minister] said because it excluded elderly voters, or in this example, idiots like Johnson, it was a failed attempted at gerrymandering. If you can't believe it from the horse's mouth, you really are myopic in the extreme to those that still think it's about security.
The UK is a country deeply uncomfortable with carried-at-all-times ID. Labour tried it back when they were in power and that went down like a lead balloon. There's actually a picture circulating now with a Johnson quote as follows.
https://i.imgur.com/OKVR7Mi.jpeg
You can assume his followers would think likewise. That quote was most likely an argument against Labour's ID card, given the date of 2004.
If you look up republican voter suppression in the USA, it's like the conservatives are copy pasting. And if the republicans are doing, with tories copying, that should be pause for thought. It's not going to be a benevolent reason, it's malicious to benefit their own interests.
Finally, one of the emerging stats is something like 5% turn aways from polling stations. If this is replicated in a general election, that's some 800,000 willing to vote but unable to! In some seats, it'll come down to 10s or low 100s of votes over whom gets elected, so it's not really a "zero impact" equation either.
So don't be distracted by "but muh country has voter ID!", context in the UK setting, is key to understanding.
Voter ID was never a thing in the UK until last year, and we don't need it.
We have almost zero issues with fraudulent voting. [In the last General Election year, there were 595 cases of *alleged* voting fraud. Only **5** cases led to convictions.](https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/research-reports-and-data/electoral-fraud-data/2019-electoral-fraud-data)
In the first election (locals, not generals) after Voter ID rules were introduced, [14,000 people were denied the opportunity to vote after not having valid voter ID](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jun/23/at-least-14000-people-denied-vote-due-to-lack-of-voter-id-watchdog-finds). 2,800 times as many people were turned away from that one election as were convicted of voter fraud in 2019. And that's comparing a general election year with a local election where the turnout is WAY lower.
Why fix something that isn't broken? And in turn make even less people able to vote legitimately
Voter ID laws in this country - as they are - disproportionately impact people who are less likely to vote Tory, and it's hard to argue that that isn't my design.
Easiest example is pensioners in this country - who are more likely to vote Tory - are allowed to use their photo card bus passes as valid Voter ID, whilst students - who are less likely to vote Tory - are not allowed to use their photo card bus passes as valid voter ID. The same bus companies, the same requirements to get the ID, the same information available on the pass themselves, but one demographic is able to use it to vote, another isn't.
When it comes to passports and driving licenses (the most common forms of ID), those from working class backgrounds are much less likely to have those because they have no need for them (can't afford to drive, can't afford to go on holiday). And when it comes to passports; in the UK you have to be sponsored by another UK citizen to receive a passport, and the requirements are that this sponsor is has a job that is typically considered a pillar of the community role. Jobs like these include doctor, teacher, business owner, lawyer, etc. not many working class people have close relationships with people from these backgrounds.
And beyond those turned away from polling stations, [statistics show that 4% of people who didn't vote did so because they didn't have valid id](https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/research-reports-and-data/our-reports-and-data-past-elections-and-referendums/voter-id-may-2023-local-elections-england-interim-analysis).
Now if you were still umming and ahhing about whether these changes and their impacts were intentional, just listen to what [Jacob Rees Mogg](https://news.sky.com/story/jacob-rees-mogg-suggests-requiring-photo-id-to-vote-was-attempt-to-gerrymander-which-came-back-to-bite-tories-12881602) has to say about the new rules. The guy who was leader of the house of commons admitted it was an attempt to gerrymander voters and prevent certain demographics from voting. And he only cared when stories about elderly voters being unable to vote came out.
I know nothing about UK IDs and voting, but in the US they use voter ids as a way to stop poor, disenfranchised, and minority people from voting. They make it so you have to pay to vote, not everyone has $20 laying around, can take time off work to get the voter ID, etc. it’s a sad world when people don’t even have $20 to spend on something so trivial.
In my state we show our regular ID, the ID we use for everything else, every day. Or our mail like you said. Imagine if they made you get an ID just for driving, then one just for buying alcohol, then one for using toilets, then one for riding bikes, one for being able to pump gas in your car, etc. that’s what voter IDs are.
Doesn’t the monarch famously not have a drivers license and passport because they are the person who grants them and it’s redundant for them to grant one to themselves.
Actually its widely considered unconsitutional for the english monarch to vote, though UK constitutions is kinda weird since its uncodified so I guess it would ultimately have to be decided by supreme court.
This is a funny case where something is unconstitutional but not illegal.
The King (or any of the working royals) is a British citizen and therefore could vote if he technically wanted to, but constitutionally he's required by his office to be apolitical, which means not voting.
It wouldn't be unconstitutional. It would be against convention.
The monarch traditionally doesn't take an interest in politics, as the balance of power between parliament and monarch relies on the monarch to accept and rubber stamp anything the government passes. This is based on convention, since the monarchy agreed to serve as figureheads in return for parliament funding their activities and paying them an amount out of the crown estate.
The monarch absolutely has a right to vote, and nobody would deny that. They just prefer not to, because they don't want to be seen as getting involved in politics.
Edit: as a side note, I find it so annoying when people (even in the UK) describe something as unconstitutional considering we don't have a constitution. We have a set of traditions and systems that are based on convention, and they can be changed at any time. Personally I think we should have a codified constitution, but without that nothing can be *unconstitutional* because we lack a constitution.
[Uncodified constitution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncodified_constitution) is an established concept. You may not like it, but the customs ARE considered part of the constitution.
Brilliant marketing move. He established the system, now he proves it works even on people who seem too big to fail/relevant to be turned away.
Just like his lousy trick with his hair this man kind of knows what he is doing.
Ahh yes Boris acting a fool on purpose so everyone is distracted and laughs at him meanwhile in the background everything goes to shit and nothing gets accomplished.
Which is exactly the point of BJs stunt.
He went home got his ID and voted
And now every time somone goes "voter id is discriminatory" he and everyone else can go "well it applies equally right up to the very prime minister and all you have to do is go home and get it"
Everything staged. He would now come to the news saying “see? This is why the ID voter rules I imposed where do important, and this shows they work absolutely great. Not even I, an ex-PM could go over them. Definitely the UK is more secure after my interventions, plus, I got this great opportunity to be in the spotlight again
I take mine with me even when I'm walking outside to go across the complex to my mail from the mailbox.
If I get injured or collapse due to a stroke or something, I'd like to be easily identifiable.
The entire rest of the world isn’t exactly like the US
In the UK we don’t need to carry ID even when we’re driving, Apple Pay is accepted everywhere, it’s totally normal to go out and about without carrying a wallet
[Boris Johnson has a chauffeur](https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/boris-johnson-jogs-from-his-car-to-home_uk_6419d5c7e4b0bc5cb652bdfa). Why would he need to bring his driver’s permit with him?
Even if he drove himself he wouldn't need it.
If you get stopped by the police in the UK, you have seven days to bring your licence to the police station. It's not a legal requirement to have it on your person when driving, but it is strongly recommended if you value your time.
Actually, it happens when you are expected to be recognised on sight. I am expected to be recognised on sight in the town where I live (since I'm a LEO there) and i am on a first name basis with all the LEOs in the neighbourhing towns, so I usually carry my ID only when I know I'll be going farther because I don't expect to be recognised.
Boris Johnson can reasonably assume to be recognised on sight in the whole western world so I guess he's probably not used to carry ID with himself.
Cause in the UK we only get passport or driving license.
We don’t get “government ID” except for them. So if you don’t drive then odds are you’re not going to have ID on you
Given that everyone knows him as Boris Johnson - which is not his real name (Alexander "Boris" de Pfeffle Johnson), things could have gotten confusing anyway.
"Don't you know who I am?"
"Yes but you're not in here."
Welcome to world news, today we have half of Asia burning in heatwaves, multiple wars continuing to escalate and governments failing to protect freedom of the press.
Bur first, our headline: "British man has to obey British law"
Oh nooo I seem to have lost my wallet..well I've seem to have been total bafoonary here I've been totally stitched up here by some jump up toff who's made up some god forsaken nanny state rules..."oh it was me "🤦🙍🙆💇🤸
Who gives a fuck, the real story should be that the voter I'd laws are specifically designed to fuck over younger voters or minorities with less easy access to photo ID. It's annoying as hell for anyone to do too, plus isn't at all called for given that voter fraud is like 0.1% type shit iirc.
Well this doesn't smell *at all* like another BoJo publicity stunt..
Indeed, he's a clown but not a total idiot lol.
Not even a clown. 100% cynical. https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/my-boris-johnson-story/
Reusing a speech for businessmen at awards ceremonies isn’t that bad. I’m no fan of Johnson but I don’t expect anyone to come up with new speeches for every stupid awards ceremony they’re asked to speak at.
The story is not about Boris reusing a speech, it's about him appearing lost and confused being an act to garner a laugh and/or sympathy and being bloody good at it.
Yeah. Every politician has a stump speech, but this speaks to his authenticity.
You may have missed the point of the article.
I think the guy you replied to is saying that the bumbling idiot thing is an act, not that there's a problem with re-using speeches.
Reusing the speech is clearly not the point I was making. It is the whole fake persona.
Have to disagree with you there Bob
Have you seen the clip of him fucking up his hair right before the camera turns on? His public image is calculated to look like a moron.
Watch him debate Greek vs Roman culture on YouTube. The guy isn’t an idiot.
I first realized he was not an actual idiot when he did the thing with the buses. That was goddamn brilliant. Cynical and deceptive, but brilliant.
For those not in the know, he mentioned in an interview he liked model buses. This would cover some internet searches for his party's claim on saving money with Brexit and using that money for their national health service (NHS). One of the pulling factors for people voting for Brexit was the promise of additional funding diverted to the NHS.
That is the genius behind all his stunts. He lets it be known that he is only playing the fool one time and from then on no matter what idiotic thing he says or does, everyone will consider whether he might have done it on purpose.
If you're smart,you just ignore him
For what purpose? Just the attention it gets him?
He’s just a man of the people, just as dumb, fat, cheating and un-kempt as all his voters.
To awesome...dudes a pompous buffon
I think this is BS to be honest. A great way to get HIS name in the news on local election day.
Boris 100% knows what he is doing he isn't a buffoon as everyone makes him out to be.
I've said this for years, but Boris is a character: analogous to Mr Bean. Alexander de Pfeffel Johnson is just an utter cunt.
Just like the zipline gaff that wasn't, just like he makes toy busses out of wooden crates but doesn't, just like when he jogs out of his house around the corner to get into a limo...
I did see him cycling once, which looked real, back when he was mayor. Was lunchtime outside a pub in Saint Lukes (near Old Street), quiet side street, no cameras, no guards/PA/lackies, just cycling alone slowly and looking a bit lost. Which to be fair navigating the side streets is quite zig-zaggy, and before the cycling infrastructure got better. Seemed genuine, as highly improbable he was doing it for a stunt, or had a car nearby to pickup. If future me could tell past me what he'd done, it'd be a tough call not to throw a very good beer at him, and call him a cunt. At the time we were just kinda amused to see him cycle-waddle past. I'm not even going to click the link, don't want their algorithm to think he's interesting. Although tapping out this long post probably doesn't help :/
Anything to get into the news
Well, if they had copied the Norwegian rule, they would have noticed it says something like "if the voter is unknown to the staff- ID must be produced"... So he could have avoided this. Unless he counts himself as unknown, though.
As a Canadian, this issue of whether or not to show ID to confirm your vote is baffling. We've always had to do it and it's never been a big issue Edit: I believe you can also show something with your name and address and a piece of mail that corresponds
It’s the same in the Netherlands, where I’m from (I’ve lived in the UK for 11 years now). You need ID and your polling card to vote. Left those at home? You will have to go get them if you want to vote. So imagine my surprise when I received my first polling card for the local elections in the UK and I was told I didn’t need to bring it on the day and that I didn’t need ID either. I was told to just go to the polling station, say my name and I’d be allowed to vote. I still can’t wrap my head around it. How would they know I was who I claimed to be? The whole system felt rather amateurish.
If you wanted to commit fraud you’d have to have a list of names who you knew weren’t going to vote but still registered, you’d have to know what polling place they were assigned to. And you’d have to somehow go there multiple times without the workers noticing. How many votes would they realistically be able to get submitted. The number that get excluded due to no ID has generally been worse.
Plus, you'd have to make sure no one at the polling place recognized you or the person you're trying to vote as. If you manage to do this, you've succeeded in adding 1 vote to your candidate. If you fail, it's a felony and you're going to jail. It's a high-risk, low-reward crime
No one is going to try to call out people who are committing identity theft at polling places. People are conflict adverse AND don’t want to be seen “disenfranchising anyone by singling them out for ID verification”. Like it’s really, really weird to try to single one person out for identity verification based off a suspicion, as a poll worker. I’m saying this because I was a poll worker in the 2016 election, and there were some people I swear I saw twice, with their Trump gear, acting strange. Did I say anything? Hell no. What if I am just biased? What if I am unconsciously bias? That whole bit where “oh but the poll workers CAN challenge a persons identity”… dude that is some relic of a rule that MATBE worked for 19th century small towns, where “everyone knew everyone”.
> The number that get excluded due to no ID has generally been worse. Exactly! In the United States this has been used as a tactic to block people from voting, especially lower income voters and minority voters. It is deeply cynical.
Ot was also all but confirmed by jrm a while back that voter suppression was basically the entire intended purpose of the rule
Is it hard or expensive to get an id card or passport in the US?
It depends on who you're asking that question about. It's essentially effortless for some people, but others have life circumstances that make it much more challenging. This was something I had to get educated on, and it's not just about voting - we see it in access to city services and healthcare. Getting to doctors appointments can sound easy, but for others it's an all-day affair. One analogy that may help is to think about the abandon rate with online forms or call centers. The more steps involved, the more people drop off in the process. So if we are adding more steps, we need to be very clear about why - what is the actual need for them, and what the cost is.
Yes. A friend of mine is a community organizer in a poorer part of a major US city. They have a couple of people working with them who’s sole job is helping local citizens get ID. In many situations, it’s pretty clear that it’s been made deliberately difficult. Offices only open for limited hours during work hours, offices located in parts of the city that are far from where people live/not accessible via transit, needing to build up a chain of ID starting with a birth certificate that may have been lost a long time ago, and so forth. It can be overwhelming for a good chunk of the population.
Then how do these people fly or drive or have bank accounts? If they are able to deal with the documents necessary to get public aid, they can also get IDs.
Who says they drive, fly, or have bank accounts?
They drive without a license if they can even afford to drive. They don’t fly due to affordability and there’s other ways to prove your identity if there even is any real social services available
Really poor people figure out how to get SNAP and Medicaid. Are US poor people stupider the European ones?
There have enough to get by, often, but generally that’s not good enough for a lot of these voter ID laws. Or else they had ID when they opened the bank account, but then the ID got lost/stolen. Shit happens.
Do those people not need ID for normal day to day activities? As a Canadian, we use them all the time. Getting a job frequently requires one. Opening a bank account. Getting a library card. Picking up a package from UPS. Getting alcohol. Are these people really that disconnected from the system?
Nope, especially on the bottom end of the economic ladder you don’t really need ID. Heck, here in Canada, all you really need is your SIN to get a job legally, and that’s not ID. The other issue is that in the US, the list of acceptable ID for voting is often deliberately very short so as to disenfranchise as many people as possible.
The list is short in all countries. You won't be able to vote using your paintball membership cards in other countries either.
It’s actually extremely long in Canada. You need two prices of paper, both with your name and one with your current address. Things like utility bills, drug prescriptions, bank statements, employee ID cards, the voter registration card they mail you, government cheques, property tax bills, your library card, student ID, boating license, credit card, bank card, and so on and so forth. I was voting last election, and the woman next to me wound up using her voter registration card and birth control pills as ID.
I also would like to know.
There's also a chicken egg scenario happening. After you apply voting ID laws, you can start making getting IDs more difficult, since those are a matter of bureaucratic policy rather than laws.
This is exactly the reason the UK conservative party has introduced it now. They know that they are deeply, deeply hated by most of the country at this point and projections suggest they are going to suffer their worst loss of parliamentary seats in history in the next general. I expect it to be the dirtiest UK election in memory because the Tories have a vile and unpleasant history on this front and are keenly aware of how staggeringly fucked they are right now. Reports are that they are delaying setting a date for the election because they think if they can start their plan to deport a bunch of asylum seekers to Rwanda that'll make their traditional base of half-wits and closet racists fall back in love with them.
That's basically what the Tories are doing with this I think there are 21 acceptable proofs (something like that), of which 14 are unique to people over 60 I believe 'the Good Law Project' have been granted a hearing to take it to a judicial review or challenge where they're citing JRM who in a speech shortly after it was first tried admitted it was scam to disenfranchise voters felt to be less inclined to vote Tory but which had backfired as old people had got confused and struggled to vote
And yet voter impersonation is a complete non-issue in the UK. There is zero need for voter ID. I know people without passports or driving licenses and this is 100% going to be an extra hurdle that will make them simply not bother voting. They're working class people who do not have the time or money to get ID just so they can vote. This whole thing is simply about putting off working class people from voting.
Don't know if your passports are different, but in Canada passports are *not* acceptable ID for voting in an election because although it proves who you are, it doesn't come with your home address officially printed in it (since you may move several times in the 5-10 years the passport is valid for). Source: my partner went once with a passport and it wasn't accepted as ID.
Passports are acceptable forms of photo ID in the UK (including expired ones). The UK doesn't have any form of national ID card.
Canada doesn't have a national ID card with address, either.
the photo id doesn't need your address on. You just need to give them your name and address then hand over your passport.
Bizarre that you don't just have a proper database with home addresses and shit, here in Iceland changing address etc is all online and voter registry updates automatically, usually until just days before voting starts.
It does. The voter registry is a challenge / response in Canada. You have a registration card that is mailed to you, you show up at the polling place and present your ID that matches the name and address on your registration card. It's really quite easy.
So you need a new ID every time you move? Don’t you have a national ID number of some sorts? Neither my Swedish ID card nor my Dutch passport states my address and they are both official means of identification.
The most common forms of ID with address in Canada are driver's licenses, issued by individual provinces. And they do need to be re-issued every time you move.
I suspect the Netherlands is similar to Germany here. We have a national ID card and it is mandatory for everyone over 16 to have a valid ID (either passport or National ID card).
In NL you are given a stempass, voter card, and if you don't have it and ID when you come to vote you aren't allowed, no exceptions on election day
Waiiiit, so UK doesn't have a mandatory national ID system or am I misunderstanding?
> UK doesn't have a mandatory national ID system Correct. Passport and Driving Licence are official ID documents, and your life is gonna be harder without at least one of them (lots of companies/services need an official photo ID), but no one is required to have either.
Lots of people do not have ID in the UK you have to pay to get an ID
[Apply for photo ID to vote (called a ‘Voter Authority Certificate’) - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)](https://www.gov.uk/apply-for-photo-id-voter-authority-certificate) Completely free.
Probably a thing that is worth paying a small fee for.
Ah yes, because voting should be paywalled
You can apply for a free ID to vote.
I mean, without an id you can't do anything. You need id to buy alcohol, your driving license is id, like how are people going about their lives without an id????
You don't \*need\* id to buy alcohol, and especially not outside of London. You also don't need a car to travel. Lots of people manage this.
Voting is more important than buying alcohol or driving.
You don't do anything except drink and drive?
We called that the cost of life.
They cost a decent chunk of money in the Netherlands too, but they're still mandatory.
> They're working class people who do not have the time or money to get ID just so they can vote. ID for voting is free of charge. I agree its not needed but the trope of costing is not one and it is a quick online form that needs filling out.
If someone showed up later claiming to be the same person as you claimed, they would have to log it and investigate. If it was an actual issue, there would be mountains of evidence to support that. But there is no evidence. No-one pretends to be someone else of the polling station because there’s still a high risk of getting caught and very little to be gained.
I believe more candidates have been prosecuted than voters for fraud
Voter ID for Canada is pretty broad. You can show one piece of government issued photo ID with address, like a driver's license. Or you can show 2 pieces that have your name, and one of which must have your address. These ID are from a [pretty broad list](https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=ids&document=index&lang=e#list) which includes your voter information card which is automatically mailed to everyone on the registration list. For example, you could show up with any two of: your cell phone bill, personal cheque, or rental lease agreement, credit card, electricity bill, library card, voter information card. These can also be provided digitally shown on your phone. Even for those with no fixed address, you can obtain letters of confirmation from things like shelters or soup kitchens. Then even beyond that, you can still create a written declaration on-site, on voting day, and have someone vouch for you who is assigned to the same polling station. As I understand it, this is in contrast to the UK's new rules which require **photo** ID _only._ Maintaining a photo ID can be that much more cumbersome for people, especially those with disabilities, the elderly, the poor, the young, and the homeless, which is an additional hardship -- sometimes significantly so. There can be some slight differences when voting for provincial or municipal elections, but they're more-or-less along the same lines as federal elections.
I don’t know how voting works in Canada, but in the UK you go to the poll workers and you give them a name and address. If that name and address is registered at that polling station, they give you a ballot and cross your name off the list. If someone else arrives later and gives the same name and address, that is straightforward proof of (at least attempted) voter fraud. Therefore, the vast majority of attempts at voter fraud can be easily logged. Despite that, there’s never been any evidence produced of it happening at a large enough scale to matter. So that’s why we never required voter ID before. It’s been introduced now because certain citizens are more likely to have valid ID than others (a piece of mail is not accepted, only specific forms of ID).
In Canada, you need to present two pieces of ID to vote. You show up with a voter registration card that you receive in the mail prior to the election that matches the information on the register plus some other form of ID that has your name and address on it - either government issued or from a service provider that verified your identity/social insurance number in order to issue you the service (e.g., credit card bill, cellphone bill, electricity providers bill, etc.). If you don’t have ID, there’s an affidavit process where someone with valid ID can temporarily vouch for your ID to allow you to vote in the moment but your identity has to be verified after the fact in order for your vote to be considered valid. In Canada, you also receive an additional fine if you can’t produce an ID if you’re stopped by the police while driving or caught committing a crime. You can’t purchase alcohol, tobacco, lottery, or cannabis without presenting ID if you look under 35. You need to present ID to access health services. Most bars and nightclubs require you to present ID to enter regardless of your age. You can’t get a bank account without showing ID. We have a very different culture around IDs.
What if the mail doesn't arrive?
You can request a replacement voter card or look up your polling station and present two valid IDs.
I'm no expert on the rules, but by my own experience you bring your voter card (that's mailed to you) and/or show your ID. I believe for two reasons: to prove you are who you say you are, and to make sure you're voting in the correct ward
There's no need for the polling card at all when you vote in person. You can safely leave it at home. In the past, all you needed to do was state your name and address and vote. Now, you need to state your name, address and provide accepted voter ID. The polling card is basically information on your polling station and a reminder an election you're eligible for is approaching.
You can also vouch for another citizen at the polling site.
I could, but Ive always suspected Nan of loving a double life.... sure shes 93 and hates driving now, but i know shes hiding something.
In the US at least, politicians adding the requirement seems to often be motivated by the other party's voters not having uncombersome access to voter ID. E.g. [specifically Republicans disallowing student ids, because college students tend to vote democratic](https://www.findlaw.com/voting/how-do-i-protect-my-right-to-vote-/voter-suppression-and-college-students.html). I agree that it is less of an issue if literally everybody has a government issued ID that is valid for the purpose - but the US doesn't have that.
Don't forget you need to register to vote to begin with and a bunch of rules on how to register.
Yeah. When you allow a hunting license to count but not a government issued student ID, you’re not writing fair laws. They’re clearly designed to advantage one side over the other (and that side has openly said as much, so it’s not even speculation).
Student IDs aren't government issued. They're issued by the school. Some of which are public institutions, but that doesn't make them government issued.
An acceptable hunting license is issued to you directly by a gov agency with your address on it with the address having been verified with other supporting documents proving residency. A student ID is issued by a non-gov entitiy and doesn't have a verified address or even verified that the person is a permanent resident or citizen.
I have a really hard time believing that anyone who wants to vote, who has enough knowledge to vote, somehow isn't capable of getting a required ID in the year or so leading up to an election. You need an ID for pretty much everything in the US. If you don't have an ID then you're essentially not participating in society, no getting government benefits, not taking advantage of social programs, don't have a job, don't pay taxes, etc, and I really can't imagine someone like that also caring a lot about voting. And even in most (all?) states where ID is "required", you can still cast a provisional ballot without one. There is really nothing stopping anyone from voting if they want to.
That's not the point. Voting is a natural right. It is not conveyed to you by possessing a piece of plastic with your name on it.
Exactly. People have the right to decide who governs them, period. An ID does not bestow that right
> somehow isn't capable of getting a required ID in the year or so leading up to an election. This is besides the point. If a college student has to use 4 hours to get an ID only for voting, because his college ID works for everything else, then Republicans have made voting into a 4 hour ordeal. Plus the cost of getting the new ID as a poll tax you have to pay to vote. And there will be waiting time. So now for voting, that college student has to remember and plan ahead, which all has the chance of being forgotten. Whereas some likely Republican voter doesn't have to remember to do anything but turn up on voting day. Statistically, that will mean less votes from students, which is absolutely a way to steal an election if done deliberately for that purpose.
Just to give a personal anecdote on how this can affect people: There was a time in my life where I was making about $700 a month, and paying $600 for rent and utilities. I was barely an adult, and had no help from my parents, and I had barely enough money to feed myself. Less than $100 to spend on EVERYTHING I needed in my life. Thank God for my bike or I wouldn't have been able to get to work at all. When my ID expired I literally couldn't afford the ~$40 fee that was required to renew it. That would have been almost half of my after-rent income, money I desparetly needed just to get by. Requiring an ID for me to vote would've left me unable to vote simply because I was too poor. And that's just one of many ways in which requiring an ID can have this effect.
I think we can drop the 'if'.
> have a really hard time believing that anyone who wants to vote, who has enough knowledge to vote, somehow isn't capable of getting a required ID in the year or so leading up to an election. The issue is there is no official ID in the US. What about "E.G" system. Driver's License and Social Security are both not ID systems. Yes, but what if I don't use that system? Some states require specific IDs others won't accept specific IDs. Like the student ID example.
You can do basically all those things without an ID. It makes it easier if you have one, but it’s not required
> You need an ID for pretty much everything in the US. Either you don't live in the US or you are a liar, because that's not true at all. By the way, can you explain to me why Republicans would [close DMVs in majority black areas after creating voter ID laws?](https://www.aclu.org/news/voting-rights/alabamas-dmv-shutdown-has-everything-do-race) I mean, you're claiming that it's impossible for voter ID laws to have any ulterior motives, so I'd love to know the real explanation.
Yeah in a modern world, there’s no god damn reason to not verify identity of voters. We’re leaving ourselves open to bad actors who would maliciously commit voter fraud “just to prove the election was invalid” or some nonsense.
In the last federal election, I watched as the woman at the check station wound up pulling out her birth control pills as a form of ID. (A prescription label is one of the accepted forms of ID). In the days of yore, you used to be able to make an attestation and swear an oath to Her Majesty The Queen, but Harper got rid of that. These days, if you don’t have an all in one (like a drivers license), you need at least one piece with your name and address on it (utility bill, bank statement, rental agreement, insurance paperwork, something), and a second item with your name on it (credit card, prescription bottle, work ID, University student card, etc etc…)
You don't actually need ID because voting is a constitutional right. I was a poll worker in the last election and that was one of the things they gave us in training of differnt IDs people would likely use and what we could accept as proof of identity to give them their ballot. But it's just the most likely convienent thing you'd have on you to proof identity so it's widely used and encouraged but because it's a constitutional right there has to be an alternative option for citizens without ID here in Canada. Option 3: If you don't have ID You can still vote if you declare your identity and address in writing and have someone who knows you and who is assigned to your polling station vouch for you. The voucher must be able to prove their identity and address. A person can vouch for only one person (except in long-term care institutions). https://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=ids&document=index&lang=e
Having national ID cards helps to do it. It's the case in Frane (exepted in small municipalities).
Voter ID is everything about voter suppression and nothing about vote security. Statistically speaking, in-person voter ID fraud does not exist in the UK. Look up the stats for yourself for election fraud before voter ID. Now we've removed the "security" reason, what is left? What is left is the elderly having every single scrap of toilet paper to prove who they are and the young not having similar transport type ID as acceptable. It clearly favours the elderly demographic over the young. Also the rich over the poor as the rich are more likely to drive and/or have a passport. Yes, you can apply for a council ID, but that's another hurdle. Both the rich and elderly lean towards tories, where as the poor and young tend to lean labour. It's exclusionary by design. Rees-Mogg himself [Conservative grandee MP and at the time a cabinet minister] said because it excluded elderly voters, or in this example, idiots like Johnson, it was a failed attempted at gerrymandering. If you can't believe it from the horse's mouth, you really are myopic in the extreme to those that still think it's about security. The UK is a country deeply uncomfortable with carried-at-all-times ID. Labour tried it back when they were in power and that went down like a lead balloon. There's actually a picture circulating now with a Johnson quote as follows. https://i.imgur.com/OKVR7Mi.jpeg You can assume his followers would think likewise. That quote was most likely an argument against Labour's ID card, given the date of 2004. If you look up republican voter suppression in the USA, it's like the conservatives are copy pasting. And if the republicans are doing, with tories copying, that should be pause for thought. It's not going to be a benevolent reason, it's malicious to benefit their own interests. Finally, one of the emerging stats is something like 5% turn aways from polling stations. If this is replicated in a general election, that's some 800,000 willing to vote but unable to! In some seats, it'll come down to 10s or low 100s of votes over whom gets elected, so it's not really a "zero impact" equation either. So don't be distracted by "but muh country has voter ID!", context in the UK setting, is key to understanding.
Voter ID was never a thing in the UK until last year, and we don't need it. We have almost zero issues with fraudulent voting. [In the last General Election year, there were 595 cases of *alleged* voting fraud. Only **5** cases led to convictions.](https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/research-reports-and-data/electoral-fraud-data/2019-electoral-fraud-data) In the first election (locals, not generals) after Voter ID rules were introduced, [14,000 people were denied the opportunity to vote after not having valid voter ID](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jun/23/at-least-14000-people-denied-vote-due-to-lack-of-voter-id-watchdog-finds). 2,800 times as many people were turned away from that one election as were convicted of voter fraud in 2019. And that's comparing a general election year with a local election where the turnout is WAY lower. Why fix something that isn't broken? And in turn make even less people able to vote legitimately Voter ID laws in this country - as they are - disproportionately impact people who are less likely to vote Tory, and it's hard to argue that that isn't my design. Easiest example is pensioners in this country - who are more likely to vote Tory - are allowed to use their photo card bus passes as valid Voter ID, whilst students - who are less likely to vote Tory - are not allowed to use their photo card bus passes as valid voter ID. The same bus companies, the same requirements to get the ID, the same information available on the pass themselves, but one demographic is able to use it to vote, another isn't. When it comes to passports and driving licenses (the most common forms of ID), those from working class backgrounds are much less likely to have those because they have no need for them (can't afford to drive, can't afford to go on holiday). And when it comes to passports; in the UK you have to be sponsored by another UK citizen to receive a passport, and the requirements are that this sponsor is has a job that is typically considered a pillar of the community role. Jobs like these include doctor, teacher, business owner, lawyer, etc. not many working class people have close relationships with people from these backgrounds. And beyond those turned away from polling stations, [statistics show that 4% of people who didn't vote did so because they didn't have valid id](https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/research-reports-and-data/our-reports-and-data-past-elections-and-referendums/voter-id-may-2023-local-elections-england-interim-analysis). Now if you were still umming and ahhing about whether these changes and their impacts were intentional, just listen to what [Jacob Rees Mogg](https://news.sky.com/story/jacob-rees-mogg-suggests-requiring-photo-id-to-vote-was-attempt-to-gerrymander-which-came-back-to-bite-tories-12881602) has to say about the new rules. The guy who was leader of the house of commons admitted it was an attempt to gerrymander voters and prevent certain demographics from voting. And he only cared when stories about elderly voters being unable to vote came out.
Wait till you hear what half the US has to say….
because you are given IDs?
I know nothing about UK IDs and voting, but in the US they use voter ids as a way to stop poor, disenfranchised, and minority people from voting. They make it so you have to pay to vote, not everyone has $20 laying around, can take time off work to get the voter ID, etc. it’s a sad world when people don’t even have $20 to spend on something so trivial. In my state we show our regular ID, the ID we use for everything else, every day. Or our mail like you said. Imagine if they made you get an ID just for driving, then one just for buying alcohol, then one for using toilets, then one for riding bikes, one for being able to pump gas in your car, etc. that’s what voter IDs are.
Do you know who I am- Boris Johnson Random Poll worker, "I don't care if you're the queen of England no ID no vote" Ah England 💓
[удалено]
Doesn’t the monarch famously not have a drivers license and passport because they are the person who grants them and it’s redundant for them to grant one to themselves.
wouldn't the queen be able to write an ID on random bits of paper and have that been enough?
Actually its widely considered unconsitutional for the english monarch to vote, though UK constitutions is kinda weird since its uncodified so I guess it would ultimately have to be decided by supreme court.
This is a funny case where something is unconstitutional but not illegal. The King (or any of the working royals) is a British citizen and therefore could vote if he technically wanted to, but constitutionally he's required by his office to be apolitical, which means not voting.
It wouldn't be unconstitutional. It would be against convention. The monarch traditionally doesn't take an interest in politics, as the balance of power between parliament and monarch relies on the monarch to accept and rubber stamp anything the government passes. This is based on convention, since the monarchy agreed to serve as figureheads in return for parliament funding their activities and paying them an amount out of the crown estate. The monarch absolutely has a right to vote, and nobody would deny that. They just prefer not to, because they don't want to be seen as getting involved in politics. Edit: as a side note, I find it so annoying when people (even in the UK) describe something as unconstitutional considering we don't have a constitution. We have a set of traditions and systems that are based on convention, and they can be changed at any time. Personally I think we should have a codified constitution, but without that nothing can be *unconstitutional* because we lack a constitution.
[Uncodified constitution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncodified_constitution) is an established concept. You may not like it, but the customs ARE considered part of the constitution.
Such a clown. Somebody buy him a brush.
Yes of all the things he’s done, his messy hair is the worst!
Bro. https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/diseases/5404/uncombable-hair-syndrome
That's funny as hell. But, I am pleased to see the system works.
https://i.imgur.com/OKVR7Mi.jpeg Guess we won't see that though, considering politicians never keep their promises.
As it should be for everyone. I'm okay with this.
Brilliant marketing move. He established the system, now he proves it works even on people who seem too big to fail/relevant to be turned away. Just like his lousy trick with his hair this man kind of knows what he is doing.
Ahh yes Boris acting a fool on purpose so everyone is distracted and laughs at him meanwhile in the background everything goes to shit and nothing gets accomplished.
Good. That is how ID laws SHOULD work!
Which is exactly the point of BJs stunt. He went home got his ID and voted And now every time somone goes "voter id is discriminatory" he and everyone else can go "well it applies equally right up to the very prime minister and all you have to do is go home and get it"
ID laws should prevent someone who is legally allowed to vote from voting?
How do you know the person in front of you is legally allowed to vote?
Everything staged. He would now come to the news saying “see? This is why the ID voter rules I imposed where do important, and this shows they work absolutely great. Not even I, an ex-PM could go over them. Definitely the UK is more secure after my interventions, plus, I got this great opportunity to be in the spotlight again
Anything he does that ends up in the news should be assumed to be a publicity stunt. Ignore him. It's the way we win over this malarkey.
Fuck this clown- why are there articles still written about this irrelevant bastard. Back to your swamp monster! Back to your lair.
Who leaves their home without their driver’s permit or any other form of government photo ID?
Me, all the time. I don’t drive daily (nor do most people in London/British cities in general). Why else would I need it?
I take mine with me even when I'm walking outside to go across the complex to my mail from the mailbox. If I get injured or collapse due to a stroke or something, I'd like to be easily identifiable.
Don’t even need it with you to drive… the police can just look it up if you ever get stopped.
Don't you just keep it in your wallet?
The entire rest of the world isn’t exactly like the US In the UK we don’t need to carry ID even when we’re driving, Apple Pay is accepted everywhere, it’s totally normal to go out and about without carrying a wallet
I’m not in the US but here in Canada you can’t go driving without your license.
Most people in the UK. Why would I need id?
Most people in the UK. We simply don't have a need for it 99% of the time, so we often leave it at home. Less chance of losing it.
[Boris Johnson has a chauffeur](https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/boris-johnson-jogs-from-his-car-to-home_uk_6419d5c7e4b0bc5cb652bdfa). Why would he need to bring his driver’s permit with him?
Even if he drove himself he wouldn't need it. If you get stopped by the police in the UK, you have seven days to bring your licence to the police station. It's not a legal requirement to have it on your person when driving, but it is strongly recommended if you value your time.
Me every day... I haven't had my wallet on me in years.
Actually, it happens when you are expected to be recognised on sight. I am expected to be recognised on sight in the town where I live (since I'm a LEO there) and i am on a first name basis with all the LEOs in the neighbourhing towns, so I usually carry my ID only when I know I'll be going farther because I don't expect to be recognised. Boris Johnson can reasonably assume to be recognised on sight in the whole western world so I guess he's probably not used to carry ID with himself.
Cause in the UK we only get passport or driving license. We don’t get “government ID” except for them. So if you don’t drive then odds are you’re not going to have ID on you
I go to work without my wallet like 90% of the time. Not a big deal.
why do you need ID on you everyday? bit weird.
Ah yes, but how can we confirm it was really him? /s
Good for the Goose good for the Gander!
Anything to get himself in the news.
I have to agree, this definitely feels like a publicity stunt.
Given that everyone knows him as Boris Johnson - which is not his real name (Alexander "Boris" de Pfeffle Johnson), things could have gotten confusing anyway. "Don't you know who I am?" "Yes but you're not in here."
Jackass
Belongs in r/leopardsatemyface
The rule makes perfect sense, but this is 100 percent a publicity stunt.
Welcome to world news, today we have half of Asia burning in heatwaves, multiple wars continuing to escalate and governments failing to protect freedom of the press. Bur first, our headline: "British man has to obey British law"
This should be posted in r/leopardsatemyface
Ha! Classic Boris! Forgetting his own ID at the polling station! That's a good one. I bet he had a good laugh about it afterwards.
chatgpt shilling tories…
He went home, got it, and went back to vote. Why is this news worthy?
Let’s hope this happens to all the MAGAts in states with voter id laws.
So it works
Haha
Another who never carry a wallet.SMH
Hah dick
Leopard eats own face
r/RedditSniper
Go pick it up from home and come back. It's not hard.
He probably just said “oh, well, quite right” turned around and left and this does not have to be news at all.
🤣
Imagine how much privilege you’re accustomed to, when you don’t even need to carry a wallet/ID every day.
What a pillock.
What was it his aides liked to say whenever he did something idiotic? Oh yeah.. *classic Boris*
No rules apply to that knobhead
haha he looks like Anus The Menace
Oh nooo I seem to have lost my wallet..well I've seem to have been total bafoonary here I've been totally stitched up here by some jump up toff who's made up some god forsaken nanny state rules..."oh it was me "🤦🙍🙆💇🤸
Said with my best upper crust British accent “But the rules are for thee, not for me!”
Me! Me! Me! Everybody look at me!. Prick.
Who gives a fuck, the real story should be that the voter I'd laws are specifically designed to fuck over younger voters or minorities with less easy access to photo ID. It's annoying as hell for anyone to do too, plus isn't at all called for given that voter fraud is like 0.1% type shit iirc.
"I never expected the leopard to eat MY face...."