So, in the last election there were only 6 cases of electoral #fraud (#MattHancock has reluctantly admitted). This from a #voting population of over 45M

You'll be aware of the number of cases of fraud by #Tory MPs (from a population of 355) exceeds this in nominal terms & is vastly larger in proportional terms.

So, let be clear, #voterID is about voter suppression not fraud.

If the #Tories were interested in #democratic fraud they'd put their own house in order.

h/t Roland Hoskins/Bird site

@ChrisMayLA6

However, part of the United Kingdom already has #voterID laws, which I don't hear much mention about or outcry over.

#NI in 2002 had The Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act
introduced which amended the Representation of the People Act 1983 which required all #NI voters to have photographic identification at polling stations.

So if it acceptable for us in #NI to have to produce ID, why isn't acceptable to the rest of the UK?

@jacqui76 @ChrisMayLA6 maybe it's not acceptable in NI either. There's a lot of ignorance about what happens in the other nations of the UK in England.

@Loukas @ChrisMayLA6

That is the problem right there. When it happens in England, there is uproar but when it's the other three nations - no-one is interested.

Maybe if those shouting about this, paid some attention how it is working in NI, then there could be a more reasoned debate.

So, if we are UK - then we all have the same voting laws or we don't. So bring the rest of the UK into line with #NI or remove the requirement from #NI

@jacqui76 @Loukas @ChrisMayLA6

The myth-or-legend was that quite a lot of dead people used to vote in NI. This didn't happen in GB. It's not unreasonable to match the response to the observed threat.

@TimWardCam @Loukas @ChrisMayLA6

There definitely was evidence of voter fraud in 1980's in NI. Many believed that Sinn Fein vote was affected more by that. However in 1983 for example 149 people arrested at polling stations, 104 were convicted.

Firstly think of the situation in NI at the time - why do think they may have wanted to discredit the British voting system - political statement? Also, was 104 convictions really that big of an opposed threat that required voter ID laws?

@jacqui76 @TimWardCam @Loukas @ChrisMayLA6 Bear in mind that 100-odd convictions in the NI population ~1 million was unlikely to throw the election, and is still 3-4 orders of magnitude higher(!) than the "problem" in GB in the 2017 and 2019 elections (on the order of 60M voters, single-digit convictions for voting fraud).

"Voter fraud" is dishonest—it's the rallying cry of factions who want to disenfranchise the electorate.

@cstross @TimWardCam @Loukas @ChrisMayLA6

Just because you believe this law is being introduced to disenfranchise voters is not the same as it actually disenfranchising voters. No-one knows what will happen in GB until the election is over.

My suggestion running up to the local elections in May, use your platform to make as many people as possible, aware of the changes. Then direct them to the places they can acquire Voter ID to allow them to vote. Once the election takes place, if there is

@jacqui76 @cstross @TimWardCam @Loukas @ChrisMayLA6 saying we must wait until after an election has been perverted by #VoterID sounds a lot like "you don't know stepping off that cliff is a bad idea until you try it"

@mjr @cstross @TimWardCam @Loukas @ChrisMayLA6

If it such bad idea, why do so many countries in Europe have photo ID requirements to vote?

What is wrong with having to prove who you are, so you can vote.

Why is it wrong for one part of the UK to have photo ID requirements already but it is wrong when the rest of the UK follow suit?

Can you not compare the voting turn out of this election with voter ID in use to others that didn't require it. So see what the impact is?

@jacqui76 @cstross @TimWardCam @Loukas @ChrisMayLA6 many other countries have universal ID already, not special #voterID. It's wrong that only part of the UK has it unless that's the choice of their elected government (which I think it wasn't). It's also wrong to make an avoidable mistake and then analyse it after.

@mjr @jacqui76 @cstross @Loukas @ChrisMayLA6

Well, one man's "devolution" is another man's "postcode prescribing", isn't it.

It's not wrong if different rules are applied to different areas because the circumstances (threats) are different. It is wrong if the threats go away and the rules aren't adjusted accordingly.