It did start with his party though. They’ve been at it since emancipation.
To wade in. ID seems fine in principle until you dig a little into why the government are proposing it. Little clue, it’s not voter fraud.
Kind of goes with their proposals to move / change constituency borders. Nothing to do with streamlining the house etc.
3 Likes
No, it actually started with the Democrats, during the Reconstruction period - back when the Republicans really were the party of Lincoln, Democrats did all sorts of things to suppress the newly emancipated slave vote, and kept up that tradition for decades. The first use of voter identification for that purpose in the US was South Carolina in 1950, at the time absolutely dominated by the Democrats. In most Southern states, the GOP was heavily Black until the early 1960s.
2 Likes
Yep , you’re factually correct , but the Democrats of that time would never be associated with today’s party. The Dixiecrats as they were then known were avowed white supremacists , and their successors today reside wholely within the GOP , and they are upto the same old tricks.
2 Likes
I’ve deleted a few posts which displayed an unfortunate choice of words, to say the least.
Let’s remember Mascot’s helpful adage: please tackle the ball, not the man. Cheers.
2 Likes
What ID is free in the UK?
In the Netherlands you need an ID too to vote, been that way as long as I can remember.
1 Like
@Klopptimist, enough please, and back to the topic at hand.
1 Like
There’s a topic in this thread?
:0)
1 Like
Because the UK tax payer should absolutely pay to subsidise this. Frack me backwards.
To be honest I agree.
Its examples like this which break down peoples trust in government funded initiatives.
When it takes 1.4M to take a truck, stick in some seats and add a projector, something has gone seriously wrong.
A brand new truck and trailer, would cost approx. 150K. You could probably justify 100K on sound insulation, seats, lighting, projector and sound…
Lets say you went all out, perhaps cost you 400K. However 1.4M ??
2 Likes
Well it would be the Scottish taxpayer but I’m wondering what the costs are intended to include. £1.5m seems a huge amount for something that likely costs a third of that to produce.
I can only think that they have included the total operational costs in that figure. Presumably any grant would be split over a number of years.
1 Like
Maybe it accounts also for the salaries of the people running it? The costs of renting the movies? Other operational costs?
2 Likes
It does feel that as long as these places have decent internet infrastructure in place, which should be a priority anyway if it isn’t, they could easily set up individual community based ‘theatres’. Which consist of a projector, screen and streamed movies and 50 chairs. Put it in a primary school/community centre/church hall
Without having to rely on the bus coming they can have screenings whenever they want. It might not be brand new releases, but I think it’s only taken from july to september for Barbie to reach Sky Box office.
Even with high end equipment, I can’t imagine this would cost more than £100,000 per project so you could build 14 for the same amount.
At least have that conversation before deciding that replacing the bus is the only possible option.
2 Likes
That does assume that there is a suitable local facility. Many of these places really are pretty remote. We had to have mobile clinics for many and the school was often a portacabin.
2 Likes
Perhaps for some places, but quickly looking at pics of the named islands Jura and Cumbrae which the bus apparently can’t reach, they both have a large hotel and/or church.
Also the potential for a pre-fab/modular building to be put up.
There won’t be a solution for all places.
1 Like
It does sound like they are trying to solve a problem from 20 years ago.
am I the only person who understands that picture is not a standard truck?