In gommunist North Korea, the voting process is purely superficial because the regime elite can modify the results in any way they want in order to give the impression that the people are aligned with their rulers 
This is particularly revealing as it suggests that the Government’s real motivation for imposing voter ID was not to prevent fraud, as they claim, but to prevent certain groups of voters from voting.
I mean... yeah. Why else would you add extra ID requirements on top of the already existing ID requirements when there is no evidence that intentionally fraudulent voting is a statically significant problem?
Haha I thought this was talking about America for a second
Pan-anglo unity 
This was always extremely, extremely obvious and transparent. As the article says, the Tories never even really tried to justify it with some other narrative. This kind of legislation passed because neither of the two parties want high election turnout. They both prefer fighting low turnout elections wrestling over the 40+ conservative demographic.
I personally know MPs and people in the Labour party who spent their years in the wilderness, during Corbyn and the last five years of unopposed Tory rule, being flown out to the US by Democrat-linked political think tanks and election orgs to teach them how to pivot to that very model, including (I shit you not) meeting with the Clinton campaign to discuss electoral strategies with them while Trump was in office.
And all parties, like the country in general, fucking hate young people and spend all their effort scoring points with an ever more elderly demographic by shitting on and talking down to the younger generations. The majority of young people have no-one in British politics representing them regardless. Which is why the Tories could openly do things like this. And why it's unlikely Labour will reverse it. Young people are simply not a constituancy that matters.
This kind of legislation passed because neither of the two parties want high election turnout
Sorry what should have been done about it? The tories had a massive majority and labour voted against it and opposed it publicly.
And all parties, like the country in general, fucking hate young people and spend all their effort scoring points with an ever more elderly demographic by shitting on and talking down to the younger generations. The majority of young people have no-one in British politics representing them regardless.
Labour are currently running with lowering the election age to 16, which is surprising but welcome as it's basically guaranteed to happen.
unlikely Labour will reverse it
I agree with you here.
Sorry what should have been done about it? The tories had a massive majority and labour voted against it and opposed it publicly.
You're right, but I intended to write "passed muster". I was talking about in the media and general discussion rather than the vote, but I should have been clearer. It was an obviously incredibly anti-democratic act and we got some light political opposition which, as you said, they knew was inconsequential as the Tories had a whacking great majoirty and a few eye rolls and tutting in medialand before everyone promptly moved on and never brought it up again. As is always the pattern with the UK's ever-rightward conveyor belt of 'new normals'.
Labour are currently running with lowering the election age to 16.
I was somewhat surprised by them pitching this (although it was policy long before this version of the Labour party) but as with so many other pledges and pitches I'll believe it when it's law. I also think that the cynical political calculus is that 'sure, more young people can vote, as we're locking them into a uni-party system where any break from out political orthadoxy is destroyed'. Why worry about young people not voting your way when they have no alternative right?
And the libs will say "because they don't vote"
Maybe they don't vote because you have nothing to offer them?
IMO a new left party should be a youth party. That's a big untapped group no one is really competing for.
I broadly agree. If a new party was going to grow, I do think it would need a strong youth bent. While young people may not have the numbers for electoral victory in a two party, one politics state there's impact to made there.
But the main reason I think that is because the stranglehold of the media on British politics is not just cursed, but stronger than anywhere else I've seen personally. And people under 30 are basically the only section of society that aren't completely captured by it and, thanks to growing up online, are more discerning in general when it comes to media and propaganda I think.
I'm always 90/10 split on voting. Part of me understands that voting is a totally hijacked system, but also a part of me thinks "if it weren't important they wouldn't go through all these scams and schemes to prevent people from doing it." I do think democratic values are good and people should have a say in the how system works, but the system has kind of already shield itself from user influence. It's just kinda sad.
I think it’s fair to say that whatever branch of leftist you are, it’s pretty unanimous that democracy is good. Liberal democracy however is ass.
Agreed. That "Liberal" modifier on "Democracy" really fucks up the whole thing.
These scams are an important part of how the system is rigged.
And honestly I think the anti-voting sentiment on the left is a symptom of unexamined lib ideals. We're all taught that voting is the most important political action, that it's powerful enough to change the world, that voting itself is a revolutionary act, and that this whole year long lead up of political theater approaching the presidential vote is somehow important. Then we realize that it's a rigged system that'll always provide a choice between slightly different coalitions of bourgeoisie interests. That doesn't live up to the propaganda we're raised with, so we yell about how shit it is and refuse to participate. But without the expectation that voting will change the world, and without the absurd idea that spending a year following the media circus is useful to anyone, spending an hour to influence which coalition of bourgeoisie interests gets its way is still a pretty good impact for an hour.
I'm not against voting. I vote in every election, even the random local runoff with like 5% turnout.
What I don't like is hearing the libs say that voting is THE MOST IMPORTANT thing ever, spend all of their time trying to get others to vote, and do nothing else. It's laziness.
And honestly I think the anti-voting sentiment on the left is a symptom of unexamined lib ideals. We're all taught that voting is the most important political action, that it's powerful enough to change the world, that voting itself is a revolutionary act, and that this whole year long lead up of political theater approaching the presidential vote is somehow important. Then we realize that it's a rigged system that'll always provide a choice between slightly different coalitions of bourgeoisie interests.
Agreed on this for sure. Personally I'm of the general belief that capital V "VOTING™©®" is good but wholly insufficient. Like washing your hands is good to prevent the flu but getting a flu shot is better, and politically I think they try to drill into us that voting is the vaccine.
do british people just not get issued IDs on birth?
The king and queen know their subjects by name the moment they are born actually
anglican church special ability
I’m assuming based on this article that a lot of British people don’t have a passport/government ID? In my country only those 2 and drivers license are sufficient to vote but I don’t know anyone who doesn’t carry either of those with them.
Nah most people have them but you don't carry them around for use as ID most of the time lmao. 85% of the population has a passport.
The people least likely to have one are young people.
Welcome to c/news! Please read the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember... we're all comrades here.
Rules:
-- PLEASE KEEP POST TITLES INFORMATIVE --
-- Overly editorialized titles, particularly if they link to opinion pieces, may get your post removed. --
-- All posts must include a link to their source. Screenshots are fine IF you include the link in the post body. --
-- If you are citing a twitter post as news please include not just the twitter.com in your links but also nitter.net (or another Nitter instance). There is also a Firefox extension that can redirect Twitter links to a Nitter instance: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/libredirect/ or archive them as you would any other reactionary source using e.g. https://archive.today . Twitter screenshots still need to be sourced or they will be removed --
-- Mass tagging comm moderators across multiple posts like a broken markov chain bot will result in a comm ban--
-- Repeated consecutive posting of reactionary sources, fake news, misleading / outdated news, false alarms over ghoul deaths, and/or shitposts will result in a comm ban.--
-- Neglecting to use content warnings or NSFW when dealing with disturbing content will be removed until in compliance. Users who are consecutively reported due to failing to use content warnings or NSFW tags when commenting on or posting disturbing content will result in the user being banned. --
-- Using April 1st as an excuse to post fake headlines, like the resurrection of Kissinger while he is still fortunately dead, will result in the poster being thrown in the gamer gulag and be sentenced to play and beat trashy mobile games like 'Raid: Shadow Legends' in order to be rehabilitated back into general society. --