Is it the EHRC or the Observer that's telling fibs?

In today's Observer I read 'Tories in new race row over identity checks for elections.' The article tells us that a leaked letter from the Equality and Human Rights Commission to Cabinet Office minister David Liddington raises concerns that identity checks to vote will deter immigrants and others from participating in the democratic process. Jeremy Corbyn, of course gets his views in, using this to bash the government. But is it true?

Apparently the crux of the letter is that under new rules, being trialled in several local authorities at the 3 May local elections, 'people will be asked at polling stations to produce documents proving their identity - such as a passport or driving licence - before casting their vote.'

But here's the thing. I happen to live in one of those trial authorities (Swindon). And it's just not true that you are asked to bring a passport or driving licence. The polling card quite clearly asks you to bring... the polling card. Nothing else.

Surely either the EHRC or the Observer couldn't be trying to mislead us for political reasons?

Update - it's been pointed out to me the government website describing the trials says that both the means used in Swindon - i.e. poll card as ID - and photo ID will be tried in different locations. However, the fact remains that the newspaper article, and by implication the EHRC complaint said that Swindon was one of the elections where photo ID would be required and it's not. There was no mention in the article of the trial of using polling cards.

Comments

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense...

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor...

Search This Blog