[Big Rob]

They have this in some US states because repugs believe it deters non-white people from voting, although electoral fraud is given as the reason.

Didn't the coalition promise not to introduce identity cards?

[Andy McDandy]

Yes they did. Presumably this is another 'after the next election' thing, once those pesky lib dems are out if the way.

It's the old Tory stance on civil liberties - more freedom for people like us, more restrictions for the scum.

[spoonman]

As pointed out, the ID proposals are based on those currently used over here in NI. Have to say I don't have a problem with it really. When I was younger and didn't have either a passport or a full driving licence, I had an electoral ID card. Around the time the new law was brought in the local election offices made visits to the likes of local community or sports centres that were publicised in advance so people in rural areas or those who have limited mobility didn't have to go to the local office to get their card sorted. They took your photo and processed the card free of charge. I remember quite a number of stories back in the 90's and early 2000's of quite a few allegations and investigations were abound over voter fraud - quite often someone would come in to cast their vote and find out that it had already been taken. Non-photographic forms of ID were not really effective in controlling this, one common scam was using fake NHS cards. Photo ID effectively put a stop to that.

I suspect some of the opposition in GB may be down to some element of cultural differences between there and over here. I remember reading the GB newspapers (again) back in the 90's about the introduction of photographic driving licences and almost everyone over here was wondering what all the fuss was about as we had such driving licences already for over two decades by that point.

[shyamz]

If they think something is been forced on the UK by the EU, they will hate it. Even if that isn't the case, they will like to think so.

[spoonman]

If they think something is been forced on the UK by the EU, they will hate it. Even if that isn't the case, they will like to think so.

A bit like metrication then.

[kronstadt]

The way spoiled papers are dealt with is fairly brisk as well. If you're a candidate, you're shown them for about half a second and asked if you think it's a spoilt paper or someone who has made an error casting their vote. There is no mechanism to deliberate between someone who has drawn a box for "none of the above" and written beside it why they feel they can't vote, and someone who has drawn a giant spurting penis and written "YOUS ARE CUNTS" beside it. They are both just spoiled papers and treated as such.

[Abernathy]

The way spoiled papers are dealt with is fairly brisk as well. If you're a candidate, you're shown them for about half a second and asked if you think it's a spoilt paper or someone who has made an error casting their vote.

Indeed, but in most cases that's simply because the returning officer has correctly and accurately identified and categorised each paper and there are no grounds for dispute. However, I've still seen candidates argue at length to try to claim even the most dubious and doubtful ballot papers as a vote for them. There's plenty of scope for disputation if someone wants to.

There is no mechanism to deliberate between someone who has drawn a box for "none of the above" and written beside it why they feel they can't vote, and someone who has drawn a giant spurting penis and written "YOUS ARE CUNTS" beside it. They are both just spoiled papers and treated as such.

Correct. And your point is? When you think about it, both the spoilt papers you cite as examples are saying precisely the same thing, so why and how should they be treated differently?