Now I'm scared

TheCatWoman said:

But quite frankly this news has me really scared, terriied, I'm shaking and may have to take some anti-anxiety meds. 

Hope you are feeling better today? I can understand how this would make someone anxious. I don’t imagine anyone really wants these online ID cards and it’s a move that does feel like a big change. If you want a drivers license you apply and the same goes for a passport where this is being forced upon us. 

Autismman said:

I don’t imagine anyone really wants these online ID cards

Overall, almost as many people support it as oppose it: 

Thanks, I guess that only includes those who voted though of course 

Thanks for that information. It helps me to appreciate my bias. However, this weighting business does not seem to be strictly scientific, whichever polling organisation does it. My main point is that digital ID is more likely to disadvantage minorities or vulnerable people, a bit like when they claim we should have photo ID to vote. We have all kinds of ID and there is no evidence I have seen that shows it adds to human happiness.

Kautsky99 said:

YouGov was set up by Tories if I recall correctly. Compared with other polling organisations, it used to seem to favour the Conservative Party, whilst Survation was more balanced.

"If there’s an opinion poll published by YouGov with figures that do not look great for Labour or the left in general, it often triggers comments on social media about how YouGov shouldn’t be trusted because its owners/founders are Conservatives."

Per Mark Pack, Lib Dem peer:

YouGov: is it biased to the Conservatives?

‘Waiting for Survation’: a reminder of the value of checking the evidence

YouGov was set up by Tories if I recall correctly. Compared with other polling organisations, it used to seem to favour the Conservative Party, whilst Survation was more balanced. In other words, so-called poll weighting may be as much an art as a science. When it comes to digital ID, the views of the average person (who may be okay) are less important than the views of minorities (who could struggle). I can envisage an autistic person without a mobile phone (perhaps temporarily) being barred from an employment opportunity if digital ID was rolled out. As if life wasn't complicated enough, and as if this would help to heal the politically driven divisions in our communities. To me, Labour has a leadership vacancy.

YouGov was set up by Tories if I recall correctly. Compared with other polling organisations, it used to seem to favour the Conservative Party, whilst Survation was more balanced. In other words, so-called poll weighting may be as much an art as a science. When it comes to digital ID, the views of the average person (who may be okay) are less important than the views of minorities (who could struggle). I can envisage an autistic person without a mobile phone (perhaps temporarily) being barred from an employment opportunity if digital ID was rolled out. As if life wasn't complicated enough, and as if this would help to heal the politically driven divisions in our communities. To me, Labour has a leadership vacancy.

Thanks for that information. It helps me to appreciate my bias. However, this weighting business does not seem to be strictly scientific, whichever polling organisation does it. My main point is that digital ID is more likely to disadvantage minorities or vulnerable people, a bit like when they claim we should have photo ID to vote. We have all kinds of ID and there is no evidence I have seen that shows it adds to human happiness.

Kautsky99 said:

YouGov was set up by Tories if I recall correctly. Compared with other polling organisations, it used to seem to favour the Conservative Party, whilst Survation was more balanced.

"If there’s an opinion poll published by YouGov with figures that do not look great for Labour or the left in general, it often triggers comments on social media about how YouGov shouldn’t be trusted because its owners/founders are Conservatives."

Per Mark Pack, Lib Dem peer:

YouGov: is it biased to the Conservatives?

‘Waiting for Survation’: a reminder of the value of checking the evidence