"3 million people are estimated not to have official photo ID, with ethnic minorities more at risk". They will "have to contact their council to confirm their ID if they want to vote"
This is shameful legislation, that does nothing to tackle the problems with UK elections.THREAD
There is no evidence in-person voter fraud is a problem, and it wd be near-impossible to organise on an effective scale. Campaign finance violations, digital disinformation & manipulation of postal voting are bigger issues, but these are crimes of the powerful, not the powerless.
In a democracy, anything that makes it harder to vote - in particular, anything that disadvantages one group of voters - should face an extremely high bar. Compulsory voter ID takes a hammer to 3 million legitimate voters (disproportionately poor & BAME) to crack an imaginary nut
If the government is concerned about the purity of elections, it should reflect on its own conduct. In 2019 it circulated doctored news footage of an opponent, disguised its twitter feed as a fake fact-checking site, and ran adverts so dishonest that even Facebook took them down.
Britain's electoral law largely predates the internet. There is little serious regulation of online campaigning or the cash that pays for it. That allows unscrupulous campaigners to ignore much of the legal framework erected since the C19th to guard against electoral misconduct.
Any democrat should care about the purity of our elections. But that means tackling laws & practices that benefit the powerful & unscrupulous. It doesn't mean erecting new barriers to 3 million poorer voters, in the absence of any evidence they have abused their electoral rights.
British democracy has many flaws, but one great strength: it has generally made voting easy & resisted the temptation to suppress turnout. This law marks a step down a very different path, the effects of which are painfully apparent in the US. We should turn back now. [ENDS]
For more on the danger to the electoral process posed by unaccountable money & digital disinformation, I warmly recommend @PeterKGeoghegan's book, "Democracy for Sale". Almost everything he describes currently sits outside Britain's outdated electoral laws headofzeus.com/books/97817895…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The UK is sleepwalking towards a truly dangerous constitutional crisis, in which we no longer agree on how we make democratic decisions or on what constitutes a valid referendum. Its roots lie in the way that we use referendums - and time is running short to fix this. [THREAD]
2. The referendum is now the most powerful instrument in our democracy. Yet we have developed no agreed rules on when, how or by whom this mighty weapon should be deployed. That makes it an object of political struggle, rather than a means through which disagreements are resolved
3. It is a basic principle of constitutional govt that arguments are fought out within an agreed set of rules - and that no single protagonist, whether in London or Edinburgh, controls the rule-book. When the rules themselves are in dispute, the stability of the state is at risk.
Lots of good advice here for anyone interviewing politicians for academic work. It reminds me of a student whose interviewee (a Labour grandee) began by ordering *two* bottles of wine - one each - "to get things started". The student never could remember what they'd talked about.
I've had some great experiences interviewing politicians. Jim Sillars introduced me to the Tunnocks bar. Gyles Brandreth jumped the security cordon and showed me around the National Liberal Club, while a retired peer had spent the morning baking and wanted feedback on her work.
If anyone thinks this is a good faith proposal, designed to secure democratic consent for changes to public monuments, let's look at what Robert Jenrick said four months ago about the procedures he is about to impose. [THREAD]
2. In a speech last September, Jenrick complained that "the planning system is broken". Only "1% of people" had "the esoteric knowledge to navigate [its] arcane and protracted world", shutting out those "who don’t have the time to contribute to the lengthy and archaic process".
3. If campaigners make it through that process (which Jenrick himself calls "as inconsistent as it is slow") more barriers lie ahead. "I will not hesitate to use my powers as Secretary of State" to enforce the view, to "be set out in law", that statues should "almost always" stay
There are important differences between Trump and Johnson, but I'm wary of the idea that Johnson is "liberal" and Trump "authoritarian". I fear this overstates Johnson's "liberalism", and risks missing the warning lights that should now be flashing across British politics. THREAD
2. It's true that Johnson has a "libertarian" streak: he dislikes rules, taxes, "red tape", "do-gooders" and the "nanny state". But so does Trump. Indeed, Trump goes much further on this, presenting masks, lockdowns, gun control, taxes & environmentalism as a danger to "freedom".
3. Johnson is not morally conservative, but nor is Trump. Neither much cares what people do in private, & neither sets much store by "conservative" moral norms on truth, fidelity or sexual continence. (Tories used to call this "licence", not "liberalism", but it's common to both)
Quiz question: of which prime minister was it said, "the P.M. never moves until he is forced, and then it is usually too late"?
Answer: H.H. Asquith in World War One. It's a parallel that tells us something, I think, about Boris Johnson's current predicament.
Asquith was a lifelong Liberal - the last man to lead a wholly Liberal govt - but found himself dismantling the liberal state in the face of total war. Conscription, press censorship, unprecedented restrictions on personal freedom: all went against the politics he believed in.
Johnson lacks Asquith's intellectual depth, but faces a similar problem. The pandemic is shredding his whole approach to politics: the mockery of the "nanny state", the nose-thumbing at authority, the contempt for rules, and dislike of "do-gooders" who try to tell you what to do.
Like @ProfTimBale, I'll be standing down shortly as Co-Director of the @MileEndInst. It's been one of the best parts of my job in recent years, so thanks to the brilliant @ProfTimBale & @sofiacusano and to everyone who took part in our events. A few lockdown highlights follow...
Our "Future of British Democracy" series explored reform of the Civil Service, the future of the House of Lords, "Corruption and the British State", and reform of Judicial Review. All our webinars are freely available on our YouTube channel.