Thread by @JolyonMaugham

There's an especially ugly and cynical thing happening in relation to voter id which hasn't got enough attention. 🧵

When voter ID was introduced there were obvious and understandable concerns about how many people would be turned away. And in new section 59A of the Representation of the People Act 1983 the Government committed to reporting on the effect of voter ID.

The suppression of votes is not a matter of concern to opposition parties, it is a matter of concern to everyone who cares about democracy. Here eg is Conservative Father of the House Sir Peter Bottomley raising the question.

If the data shows lots of voters were turned away, this should benefit the Tories - a 'good' outcome. But voter ID will also be harder to justify in a legal challenge - a 'bad' outcome.

Hmm, how to resolve this dilemma?

Clive Betts asked the Government Minister...

Ah, says the Minister, Rachel MacLean. Polling Station staff will record details of voters turned away for the purposes of legal challenges and to enable evaluation of the policy.

What could be wrong with that?

Well... As it turns out, people will often be turned away at two stages, first by 'meeters and greeters' ('do you have voter id, madam? No? Well no point going in') and also by Polling Station staff if you do get in.

There was no denial of this by the Government Minister.

So. Dilemma resolved: you can have both lots of voter suppression ('good') and data which understates how much there was (also 'good').

Cynical beyond all belief.

Credit to @peterwalker99 whose piece drew this to our attention. theguardian.com/politics/2023/…

First, they inhibit the voting rights of groups unlikely to vote Tory. Second, they fiddle the statistics to pretend it didn't happen. Just outrageous.

If you'd like to support a legal challenge to this outrageous attack on the voting rights of younger people and minoritised communities you can do so here. goodlawproject.org/were-ready-to-…