Biden Thread

[rory_20_uk]

Property values and school demographics/selection are two areas in which very few on the broad left are willing to part with socioeconomic advantages.

You're right, but no offense, aren't you in the same boat with your constitutional pessimism about the possibility for improvement? The NYT too gets little of my approval for raising this issue given the density of conservative apologia and boosterism that it publishes - including such as what tends to militate against the movements to spread affordable housing and integrated schooling.

Prior to this I was ignorantly under the misapprehension that Democrats were mainly hamstrung by the lack of a significant majority to overcome the fillibuster and fix some of the issues. But it in fact appears to be the case that they are quite pleased to not have the ability to do something that they have the luxury of loudly declaiming knowing they'll never have to follow through.

[Montmorency]

Prior to this I was ignorantly under the misapprehension that Democrats were mainly hamstrung by the lack of a significant majority to overcome the fillibuster and fix some of the issues. But it in fact appears to be the case that they are quite pleased to not have the ability to do something that they have the luxury of loudly declaiming knowing they'll never have to follow through.

I mean, none of the Biden agenda contains any dramatic measures with regard to racial or gender issues (other than, for example, very modest family leave policy* which is only controversial by the standards of 100 years ago, and is an idea beloved by the very urban/suburban professionals you identify as hypocrites on other issues). Edit: So "they are quite pleased to not have the ability to do something that they have the luxury of loudly declaiming knowing they'll never have to follow through" isn't an accurate takeaway, or not in this regard. (To add, BBB does not AFAICT contain any mandatory or well-incentivized abridgements of common local zoning rules favoring single-family housing (good for property values, bad for density and affordability).



*I can't recall, but by now it's either out of negotiations entirely or reduced to 4 weeks.


My point is just, most Democrats in DC are at least not like Kyrsten Sinema, who has publicly withdrawn prior stances on taxation and Medicare administration following overt advances by business groups, only to declare:

However, she will criticize her party for its complicity in setting unachievable, sky-high expectations, just like the Republicans who promised to repeal Obamacare under former President Donald Trump. A $3.5 trillion social spending bill, sweeping elections reform, a $15 minimum wage and changes to the filibuster rules were always a long shot with Sinema and Manchin as the definitive Democratic votes in the Senate.

“You’re either honest or you’re not honest. So just tell the truth and be honest and deliver that which you can deliver,” Sinema said. “There's this growing trend of people in both political parties who promise things that cannot be delivered, in order to get the short-term political gain. And I believe that it damages the long-term health of our democracy.”

There's talking a big game while foreclosing any followthrough!

[Montmorency]

First-world country.

@spmetla

Before it all came crashing down, Archi Duenas’ gun-stealing scheme was relatively simple, county prosecutors wrote in a memo. He just couldn’t go on vacation.

Duenas, manager of the gun store at the Los Angeles Police Academy, had been reprimanded over the years for tardiness and sloppy record keeping, but he never took time off, according to the memo. As the store’s closing supervisor, he was there each night to lock up — and hand count the inventory.

If someone else had been assigned that count, they might have discovered that dozens of guns were missing and that Duenas was stealing them and selling them for cash, prosecutors wrote in the memo. But since he was always there, the Los Angeles Police Revolver and Athletic Club was apparently none the wiser.

This went on for years, prosecutors wrote, facilitated by a lack of oversight and safety protocols that are considered standard in other gun stores.

Then, in February 2020, Duenas’ bosses told him he had accrued the “maximum allowable leave hours” and had to take time off, prosecutors wrote in the memo. When he did, another manager finally made the startling discovery: Boxes meant to have guns in them were actually empty.

The resulting investigation quickly led to Duenas’ arrest. But it also uncovered a larger scandal inside the LAPD: The clientele for Duenas’ stolen weapons included cops.

There are also dueling claims by some of the accused officers that they have been scapegoated by overzealous investigators despite doing nothing wrong and being victims themselves — not only of Duenas’ deception but also of years of negligence on the part of the LAPD to ensure proper management of the gun store, which it directed officers to use.

That alleged neglect, according to a pending claim against the city from one officer, came despite the fact that the LAPD was aware for years of “prior negligence and mismanagement issues related to the sale, tracking, and documentation of firearms and firearm transactions” by gun store personnel.

The case raises red flags about the LAPD’s oversight of the gun store and its ability to investigate its own officers. It also offers an eye-opening window into the gun culture within the LAPD and the degree to which LAPD officers are allegedly profiting off the sale of firearms — including “off roster” guns that police officers have special access to despite their being declared unsafe for commercial sale in the state.

Investigators alleged LAPD officers, including several who are still on the job, knowingly purchased stolen weapons from Duenas, bought and sold much larger numbers of firearms in questionable ways, and dangerously stored loaded guns in places accessible to children, according to internal police records.

Top commanders, meanwhile, have been accused by the captain who initially oversaw the investigation of purposefully impeding the work of her detectives and assisting those in their crosshairs, including by forcing investigators to interview a high-ranking captain whom they suspected of wrongdoing before they were prepared to do so, and by ushering that same captain into his home — armed and in uniform — while investigators with a warrant were searching it, internal LAPD records show.

“The facts speak for themselves,” wrote Capt. Lillian Carranza, who oversees the LAPD’s commercial crimes division, in an April email to other top officials. “There have been several attempts to shut down this investigation.”

To be fair, while the problem is especially acute in the US, the whole "developed" world will eventually need to come to grips with its relationship with the delegation of unaccountable power and violence to armed state agents. This capacity and the institutions it builds for itself is ultimately the sort of thing referred to in the aphorism that "Government is like fire, a dangerous servant and a fearful master" - though oddly enough the sort of people who tend to invoke this phrase apply it almost always to the likes of food-safety regulations rather than the security arm of the state.



We knew last November that Dems would probably lose the House, but by now it's all but confirmed that 2022 will be a 2018-style wave, but against the Democrats. The gerrymandering disparity alone would be decisive once all states complete redistricting - these represent fewer than half of Congressional districts so far. The 2020 gerrymanders are proving to be much more effective than even the unprecedented 2010 gerrymanders. The Democratic commitment to neutral districting in states they have influence over is ironically unilateral disarmament in the absence of a comprehensive constraint. Even as states like Illinois and Maryland pursue more favorable Democratic gerrymanders, most of the gettable seats are left on the table by way of bipartisan power-sharing and non-partisan committees - largely implemented over the past decade. In this regard maybe it's better to stand by good government and rely on negative radicalization of the masses; the battle for the Republic won't be decided by such marginal tactics (as countergerrymandering) anyway.



Conservative Democrats are not just damn fools for failing to support electoral reform and gerrymandering bans - let alone DC statehood - they are outright Vichy collaborators, to revive a Bush-era epithet.

To sweeten the deal, the abortion marketplace in the United States is about to get quite tight.

[spmetla]

To be fair, while the problem is especially acute in the US, the whole "developed" world will eventually need to come to grips with its relationship with the delegation of unaccountable power and violence to armed state agents. This capacity and the institutions it builds for itself is ultimately the sort of thing referred to in the aphorism that "Government is like fire, a dangerous servant and a fearful master" - though oddly enough the sort of people who tend to invoke this phrase apply it almost always to the likes of food-safety regulations rather than the security arm of the state.

Well, the recruits for these positions are typically people that want this type of power. It's always been the dilemma of who's to guard us from the guards? Just like the military, the police need to try and recruit from a wide spectrum of the population that's just restricted by the specific job requirements, certainly one of the benefits to mandatory service/draft.

For the police though, there's certainly room for reform in the US, one of the major things would be not using the police for so many things. If State and County police departments further compartmentalized the roles of police into separate things. Should the police really be in charge of firearms registration and such? I get enforcement and seizures of illegal firearms but surely police are too short handed to something like this. State level firearms departments or ATF of a sort might be better suited.

Think the policy of civil forfeiture in the US would be one of the many aspects that need to be fixed as it pretty much rewards policy overstepping their bounds with no real recourse by citizens.

[Hooahguy]

I think people are finally starting to realize that the media is not exactly unbiased in either way. 2020 made me realize that the media thrives on chaos, and 2021 only reinforced that view.
See this graph:


Article link

In 2020, Trump presided over a worst-in-world pandemic response that caused hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths; held a superspreader event at the White House and got covid-19 himself; praised QAnon adherents; embraced violent white supremacists; waged a racist campaign against Black Lives Matter demonstrators; attempted to discredit mail-in voting; and refused to accept his defeat in a free and fair election, leading eventually to the violence of Jan. 6 and causing tens of millions to accept the “big lie,” the worst of more than 30,000 he told in office.

And yet Trump got press coverage as favorable as, or better than, Biden is getting today. Sure, Biden has had his troubles, with the delta variant, Afghanistan and inflation. But the economy is rebounding impressively, he has signed major legislation, and he has restored some measure of decency, calm and respect for democratic institutions.

We need a skeptical, independent press. But how about being partisans for democracy? The country is in an existential struggle between self-governance and an authoritarian alternative. And we in the news media, collectively, have given equal, if not slightly more favorable, treatment to the authoritarians.

Sentiment analysis ranks coverage from entirely negative (-1.0) to entirely positive (1.0), and most outlets are in a relatively tight band between -0.1 and 0.1. Overall, Biden was slightly positive or neutral for seven months, ranging from 0.02 to -0.01. That plummeted to -0.07 in August — a lower number than Trump hit in all of 2020 (or 2019) — and has been between -0.04 and -0.03 ever since. Trump never left a narrow range of -0.03 to -0.04. (The data set doesn’t go far enough back to make a comparison to Trump’s first year in office.)

Lets also take this little article from Axios: McConnell: No legislative agenda for 2022 midterms

Until the media begins to treat the severity of the current situation, American democracy is doomed. Whether we like it or not, the media helps shape perceptions. Like how many of the "Democratic infighting" stories are actually just stories of different factions arguing over legislation? Which is what should be happening in a health democracy- groups of people debating over policy, seeking for common ground. But its being presented as mortal enemies fighting within a coalition. Meanwhile the GOP has dropped any pretense of governance and seeks power for the sake of power and that's not being handled with the appropriate severity by enough people.

I also agree with Monty, the nonpartisan redistricting panels might look like a good and noble idea on paper, but unless every state has them, they were a terrible idea that shot Dems in the foot. But I guess its a bit late to change any of that, isnt it.

[Pannonian]

Are there any areas where Manchin votes with the Democrats against the Republicans?

[Montmorency]

Are there any areas where Manchin votes with the Democrats against the Republicans?

He's voted to accede most of Biden's judicial and administrative nominations, the son of a son. Without him we would have nothing at all, is the reality of life on the legislative edge. And we almost certainly lose his seat in the 2024 election regardless.

But Manchin is a stock character in bourgeois democracy. The fundamental problem is that people can't get the sense to vote better elsewhere, or even in sheer recognition of the collapsing state of the country and the depredations upon it. Also, this excerpt from Levitz on Manchin recently:

Democrats had hoped the enhanced CTC’s impending expiration would work as a forcing mechanism for Build Back Better’s passage. After all, the whole “do many temporary programs” strategy is premised on the idea that Congress simply cannot resist extending social benefits once they’re in place. Faced with a choice between acceding to the leadership’s demands or allowing West Virginia families to lose their monthly benefits, Manchin would feel compelled to cave.

But this doesn’t seem to be the case. On the contrary, Manchin reportedly sees the enhanced CTC’s expiration as a feature, not a bug. And the senator’s indifference to extending the program doesn’t just reflect his own peculiar ideological hang-ups. It’s also indicative of the fact that overwhelming public support for the policy has failed to materialize. Democrats have been sending hundreds of dollars every month to each of the roughly 40 percent of U.S. households that have kids under 18, yet in an NPR/Marist poll released last week, only 17 percent of voters said their family had ever received a monthly payment. Roughly half of the enhanced CTC’s beneficiaries don’t even know they have been benefiting from the program. But Democrats are counting on this constituency to be so politically powerful and mobilized that a future Republican Congress would have no choice but to extend the enhanced CTC. If direct monthly payments have failed to create a self-sustaining constituency, there is little basis for believing that less universal (and/or more dysfunctional) programs like the Democrats’ current child-care and paid-leave plans will do so.

I've been on this beat throughout 2021. We can't aspire to a self-governing polity when so many people don't even understand enough to vote themselves the treasury.

[Montmorency]

Good summary of Manchin's 2021.

Sometimes it's funny enough to bring you to tears:

In recent months, Manchin has told several of his fellow Democrats that he thought parents would waste monthly child tax credit payments on drugs instead of providing for their children, according to two sources familiar with the senator’s comments.

Continuing the child tax credit for another year is a core part of the Build Back Better legislation that Democrats had hoped to pass by the end of the year. The policy has already cut child poverty by nearly 30%.

Manchin’s private comments shocked several senators, who saw it as an unfair assault on his own constituents and those struggling to raise children in poverty.

Manchin has also told colleagues he believes that Americans would fraudulently use the proposed paid sick leave policy, specifically saying people would feign being sick and go on hunting trips, a source familiar with his comments told HuffPost.

@Seamus Fermanagh

I don't have great respect for the rural White myself, but this is altogether too much.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I don't have great respect for the rural White myself, but this is altogether too much.

A culturally vexing group. As an aggregate, they represent many of the best qualities of US culture -- and simultaneously champion and exemplify many of the worst aspects of our culture.

[Montmorency]

A culturally vexing group. As an aggregate, they represent many of the best qualities of US culture -- and simultaneously champion and exemplify many of the worst aspects of our culture.

Well, yes, such as lacking the resources to, or outright refusing to, categorize Covid deaths as Covid deaths, but Manchin's level of reflexive prejudice is still appalling. "Americans would fraudulently use the proposed paid sick leave policy... people would feign being sick and go on hunting trips" sounds like a remark that would come from Donald Trump. Then again, he and Manchin do share a class.

[Montmorency]

1 year anniversary of the Republican beta for 2024.

The cartoonist Garrison is widely appreciated among the Left for his pure uncut doublethink and surrealism.

[Montmorency]

Like Illinois and Oregon's, the New York Democrats appear to be stepping up gerrymanders. Fair enough.




In 2019, the Supreme Court was asked to disallow extreme partisan and racial gerrymandering on constitutional and legal grounds. John Roberts replied " you."*

For at least the past 4 years - most recently last December - Congressional Democratic leadership has been asking Republicans to join them in passing federal prohibition of gerrymandering. Mitch McConnell replied " you."

When Democrats turn and respond, "No, YOU," they can at least impose some little measure of consequence.

As the redistricting process comes closer to a conclusion, it turns out that the imbalance is less severe than once feared. With Republican states having mostly maximized gerrymandering back in 2011-2, and many GOP incumbents now prioritizing the reinforcement of their safer districts over the dilution of liberal ones, increased gerrymandering in some Democratic states leaves the national Republican advantage only somewhat more than it previously was. That's appallingly bad, but not as bad as it could have been. Republicans are likelier to take only a modest majority in the House.

*Some on the Org heartily approved.

[Furunculus]

what a mess.

the UK doesn't do too badly with its Boundary Commission by comparison.

[rory_20_uk]

what a mess.

the UK doesn't do too badly with its Boundary Commission by comparison.

Indeed. Given in the UK both parties tend to be upset at both a party level (they might loose seats) and at an individual level (an individual might have more chance of loosing their cushy job).

Although not ideal, using a mathematical formulae to delineate boundaries (divide the numbers of voters in half by the shortest line possible; repeat until the desired number of areas created) is extremely difficult to fix and is easy to double check.

[Pannonian]

what a mess.

the UK doesn't do too badly with its Boundary Commission by comparison.

Electionpolling.co.uk Swingometer

2019 result
Conservatives: 44.72%
Labour: 32.9%
Result: Conservative 80 seat majority

Switch Conservative and Labour numbers
Conservatives: 32.9%
Labour : 44.72%
Result: Hung Parliament, Labour short by 3

[Furunculus]

Electionpolling.co.uk Swingometer

2019 result
Conservatives: 44.72%
Labour: 32.9%
Result: Conservative 80 seat majority

Switch Conservative and Labour numbers
Conservatives: 32.9%
Labour : 44.72%
Result: Hung Parliament, Labour short by 3

that sounds like a problem of the electoral system, i.e. FPTP where the party has an inefficiently spread vote
rather than a problem of the electoral wards, n.b. which is the responsibility of the Boundary Commission.

[Montmorency]

that sounds like a problem of the electoral system, i.e. FPTP where the party has an inefficiently spread vote
rather than a problem of the electoral wards, n.b. which is the responsibility of the Boundary Commission.

Well yes, I reminded you of this just recently in our discussion of structural barriers to Labour politics in the UK.

FPTP is inherently likely to disadvantage certain constituencies or factions. This applies more or less also to those fixed geographic jurisdictions, in the US the "several states." After the Civil War, Republicans had enormous advantages in the Senate and Electoral College almost all the time until the New Deal (in part by using federal power to establish many small new Republican-dominated states in the West), then the Solid South gave Democrats the slant most of the time, but by the 21st century as the South finished turning deep Republican this advantage swung back to the Republican Party.

But for the most part, in both the UK and US, the jurisdictions composing the representation of the House of Commons/Representatives are not fixed. These are maps that must be drafted semi-regularly for the sole purpose of running elections. The exceptions are the single-district states in the US and national (Scotland, Wales) malapportionment in the UK (and, like, islands or whatever).

I haven't done a lot of reading on the districting process in the UK, but it seems a commonly-held observation that districting tended to be biased toward Labour in the late 20th century until rather recently - not because the districting commissions are necessarily biased, but because the rubrics they hew to had been biased toward the political geographies of Labour support. You can't claim a neutral process if the whole system is built to make one party's votes much more "inefficient" across constituencies. This is why the FPTP reform wave in the US over the past 20 years has focused on creating mathematical measures of fairness and competitiveness, such as the "efficiency gap," producing highly-competitive maps in deep-blue states such as California and Colorado, whereas as I understand it the UK districting framework largely deprecates explicit consideration of political bias and relies more on 19th-century modes of building credibility; compact borders, natural communities, and similarly-populated districts (at least compared to the US) are not enough.

From this 2001 analysis:

There is general agreement that first-past-the-post in single-member constituencies is
one of the most disproportional of electoral systems. The reasons for this are well
understood. Much less discussed and understood, however, is the degree to which that
system treats political parties differentially, creating bias.

Such bias is well-illustrated by recent UK general elections. In 1979, the Conservative
party won 43.9 per cent of the votes cast and 53.4 per cent of the seats. Four years
later, it won 42.4 per cent of the votes but 61.1 per cent of the seats. In 1987, its
shares of the votes and seats were 43.4 and 57.8 per cent respectively, and then in
1992 its vote share fell slightly, to 42.3 per cent, but its share of the seats fell more
sharply – to 51.6 per cent. Labour won in 1997, with 43.3 per cent of the votes and
63.6 per cent of the seats. Thus over five elections, whereas the leading party’s share
of the votes only ranged between 42.3 and 43.9 per cent its share of the seats varied
more, from 51.6 to 63.6 per cent. With virtually the same share of the votes at four
successive elections the Conservatives won very different shares of the seats, and then
when Labour won with the same vote percentage its share of the seats was larger than
the Conservatives ever achieved.

The reasons for this differential treatment are found in the ‘classic’ abuses of
constituency-definition – malapportionment and gerrymandering. These – as Gudgin
and Taylor (1979) conclusively demonstrated – operate even when the redistribution
process (the UK term for redistricting) is undertaken by non-partisan, independent
bodies (in the UK, the Boundary Commissions, which operate under an Act of
Parliament with specified rules – albeit ambiguous and contradictory, as shown in a
recent detailed study: Rossiter, Johnston and Pattie, 1999)

Thus in 1997 Labour got 43.3 per cent of the votes cast and the
Conservatives 30.7. Reducing the Labour share by 6.3 percentage points in every
constituency and increasing the Conservative share by the same amount makes them
equal, with 37.0 per cent each. But with those equal shares, Labour would have won
82 more seats than the Conservatives – a very clear bias in its favor (the total number
of seats was 659).

Why has Labour increasingly benefited? In the 1960s and 1970s this was largely
because of the malapportionment components plus abstentions. In the 1990s
gerrymandering, abstentions and minor party influences all played a part.
Three reasons generated this change in Labour’s fortunes – given that its geography
of support remained very much the same across the 14 elections and the Boundary
Commission procedures did not change markedly.

1. The negative impact of the cracked gerrymander. A cracked gerrymander is risky
for the benefiting party: constituencies with small majorities are vulnerable if its
opponent performs well at an election. Labour benefited from its large vote share
increase in 1997 (allied with the Conservatives’ lowest share), winning many
constituencies in the usually pro-Conservative cracked gerrymander areas. The
gerrymander bias component was worth 48 seats to Labour as a consequence.

2. Labour’s focused campaigns in 1992 and 1997. Labour paid relatively little
attention to its safe seats at these two contests, knowing it would almost certainly
win them all – especially in 1997. In the absence of intensive local campaigns,
turnout was generally low, increasing Labour’s advantage from the abstentions
component (from 10 seats in 1987 to 20 in 1992 and 33 in 1997) without it losing
any seats.

3. Tactical voting (the British term for strategic voting). In 1992 and, especially
1997, the volume of tactical voting in Conservative-held seats increased
substantially, as an increasingly sophisticated electorate (many of them
determined to unseat the Conservative candidates) responded to cues provided by
the parties and other interest groups to support the opposition party best-placed to
achieve that. In general, the second-placed party in Conservative-held seats
increased its vote share by more than the average amount whereas the third-placed
party’s share fell (often absolutely). As a result, many of the second-placed parties
won – increasing the number of minor party victories – whereas the number of
wasted votes per seat lost by third-placed parties fell. (On tactical voting see
Johnston et al, 1997, and Evans et al 1999.)

Together, all three strategies meant that Labour substantially reduced both its number
of surplus votes per seats won and number of wasted votes per seat lost (which for the
first time fell below the Conservative level). Not only did it increase its vote share
substantially between 1992 and 1997, therefore, it also increased the efficiency of its
vote share: it got a much better return on its votes (a higher seats:votes ratio) than ever
before.

But of course political geographies can change, coming from above (e.g. change in districting authorities, or contraction/expansion of the legislature), or below (e.g. the rise of new parties or coalitions). I can't say how the maps are being changed by the long-term shift of college-educated voters into center-left parties as that continues. And one might also argue that it is not a desirable principle for elections to be more competitive, though I don't know why low competitiveness would be preferable in any healthy electoral democracy.

But, so anyway, with the past 6 UK elections having been conducted using districts based on data from 2000 or older, and that map becoming biased against Labour representation since the end of the Blair era, I can only hope new boundaries in the 2024 election wind up helping Labour. I'm sure someone has done low-maths analysis of the possibilities.

[Furunculus]

the general expectation is that the redrawn boundaries will get the tories another 5-10 seats in England:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-the-impact-be

[Pannonian]

the general expectation is that the redrawn boundaries will get the tories another 5-10 seats in England:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-the-impact-be

Any studies of how requiring voter ID will help the Tories? Since it's a tried and tested way of excluding poorer and less privileged voters whilst dressing it up as a way of preventing voter fraud which all studies indicate is close to non-existent.

[Furunculus]

Any studies of how requiring voter ID will help the Tories? Since it's a tried and tested way of excluding poorer and less privileged voters whilst dressing it up as a way of preventing voter fraud which all studies indicate is close to non-existent.

Not that i know of...

[Pannonian]

Not that i know of...

I remember someone saying that it was a way of combating fraud, and me pointing out that electoral fraud in the UK is near non-existent. It was especially notable because the requirement is a tried and tested way in the US of stopping poor people from voting Democrat.

Edit: It was in response to a prob-Trumpian who was sceptical that Biden had won the election legitimately, alleging fraud because there isn't 100% reliability.

[Pannonian]

Someone noted earlier in this thread that they couldn't be 100% certain there wasn't fraud in the 2020 election, and thus doubted if Biden had won fairly. It turns out that there was indeed electoral fraud in Colorado, just as that poster had feared. Except it was by a Republican election official.

Given how much cheating the Republicans did, how much did Biden really win by? How much cheating will the Republicans do in the future, given that we know that they are determined to break all rules?

Colorado's top elections official said Thursday that she is investigating a "potential breach" in voting security by a local Republican county clerk.

Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold said that in late January her office learned of a social media post, "attributed to Douglas County Clerk and Recorder Merlin Klotz," in which the official appears to boast that he made a copy of the hard drives used by local election systems.

[Montmorency]

I remember someone saying that it was a way of combating fraud, and me pointing out that electoral fraud in the UK is near non-existent. It was especially notable because the requirement is a tried and tested way in the US of stopping poor people from voting Democrat.

Edit: It was in response to a prob-Trumpian who was sceptical that Biden had won the election legitimately, alleging fraud because there isn't 100% reliability.

Yes, the Republican axiom, nowadays stated openly, is that a Democrat is of itself not a legitimate voter, so elections won by Democrats are a definitional matter of fraud.

In your country this really depends on UK particulars that other people sort out and which I prefer you to search out for posting, but based on what we know of the effects of voter ID laws in the US, I would expect limited effects on turnout and Labour vote share from any similar rules if:

1. People without ID are much less likely to be politically active or informed.
2. Affected prospective voters would be disproportionately concentrated in party-locked constituencies.
3. People falling into the target demographic are more politically mixed - when they do try to participate - than those targeting them may assume.
4. Some effects of voter suppression laws can be conditionally compensated for by increased investment in voter outreach and civil-societal or party activism (n.b. this costs money and time).

Sample overview of the American case.

But it's a troubling sign of the Conservative Party's trajectory. I've read that the UK system provides ample time to cast a vote before election deadlines, and that traditional polling places are plentiful with no or minimal wait times. If that's currently the case, worry more if and when the government moves to change it.

I was a little confused to hear this news, because I thought the the UK was counted in the ranks of countries with mandatory universal ID. It turns out Cameron's government reversed the mandate by repealing the Identity Cards Act of 2006 as one of its early actions. Hmmmm...

(If the British government can strictly regulate butter knives, it can hand its citizens ID cards.)

Some tangential data on historical UK election turnout.

[Pannonian]

Yes, the Republican axiom, nowadays stated openly, is that a Democrat is of itself not a legitimate voter, so elections won by Democrats are a definitional matter of fraud.

In your country this really depends on UK particulars that other people sort out and which I prefer you to search out for posting, but based on what we know of the effects of voter ID laws in the US, I would expect limited effects on turnout and Labour vote share from any similar rules if:

1. People without ID are much less likely to be politically active or informed.
2. Affected prospective voters would be disproportionately concentrated in party-locked constituencies.
3. People falling into the target demographic are more politically mixed - when they do try to participate - than those targeting them may assume.
4. Some effects of voter suppression laws can be conditionally compensated for by increased investment in voter outreach and civil-societal or party activism (n.b. this costs money and time).

Sample overview of the American case.

But it's a troubling sign of the Conservative Party's trajectory. I've read that the UK system provides ample time to cast a vote before election deadlines, and that traditional polling places are plentiful with no or minimal wait times. If that's currently the case, worry more if and when the government moves to change it.

I was a little confused to hear this news, because I thought the the UK was counted in the ranks of countries with mandatory universal ID. It turns out Cameron's government reversed the mandate by repealing the Identity Cards Act of 2006 as one of its early actions. Hmmmm...

(If the British government can strictly regulate butter knives, it can hand its citizens ID cards.)

Some tangential data on historical UK election turnout.

I've never carried mandatory ID in the UK. nor have I ever needed ID to vote. These two things were things that happened abroad, not in the UK. A photo ID was only needed for certain functions, and it was easy to go through years without needing one. Voting was a matter of turning up to a polling station and confirming identity by saying "I am so and so at this address", when you're given a ballot paper.

[Furunculus]

I was a little confused to hear this news, because I thought the the UK was counted in the ranks of countries with mandatory universal ID. It turns out Cameron's government reversed the mandate by repealing the Identity Cards Act of 2006 as one of its early actions. Hmmmm...

(If the British government can strictly regulate butter knives, it can hand its citizens ID cards.)

we refused to go along with the notion that ID cards were for our own convenience and security, after that the argument to create another mega database and compel people to present ID on request died an ignominious death.

[Montmorency]

The usefulness of a universal ID is manifest even without requiring it for such daily activities as walking down the street. I wish we had one here (in the meantime, I make do with my Social and a REAL-ID-compliant NY state ID).

More to the point, politicians who reject universal IDs while demanding photo ID at the ballot never have security or convenience as their objects. Never.

[Pannonian]

I'm not sure where to post this, as it's a British action, but it relates to US government. Are trade deals a federal thing governed by the national government, or is it actionable by individual states? Is it possible to bypass the executive (President)? Presumably the President has to sign it off at some point, but does it have to go through the Houses of Congress as well?

I'm asking this because, according to one of our papers, the UK government is planning to bypass Biden by signing trade deals with individual US states.

[Furunculus]

there was a solid argument from Sam Lowe (trade expert) a few years back that it was perfectly possible for EU nations to individually make sub-trade-deals with third parties, to negotiate useful business facilitation (a.k.a. a trade 'agreement') with third countries as long as it did not impinge on competences granted to the EU.

this could be very similar.

[Montmorency]

What does the UK government say they want to negotiate state-by-state? I doubt it would be constitutional to any meaningful extent though:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes

I believe a foreign company can come and negotiate various arrangements with states or localities, such as tax abatements and other incentives, but if it's a government entity, not even that much may be permitted.

Seems like a subject for the blogs and Twitter experts.

[Pannonian]

What does the UK government say they want to negotiate state-by-state? I doubt it would be constitutional to any meaningful extent though:



I believe a foreign company can come and negotiate various arrangements with states or localities, such as tax abatements and other incentives, but if it's a government entity, not even that much may be permitted.

Seems like a subject for the blogs and Twitter experts.

Here you go, from The Times.

Britain pursues US trade deals state by state after Biden snub

Ministers have begun a move to strike “mini” trade deals with individual American states after President Biden made clear he had little interest in pursuing a trade agreement with Britain.

Under a new strategy by the Department for International Trade, ministers have led a charm offensive in state capitals to take advantage of America’s federal structure of government.