The press has, as usual, not been entirely honest about this. In particular, there was a talking point about how only one non-passport and non-driving license form of ID that young people are likely to have compared with much more forms of ID that older people will have, but that one form of ID is a blanket scheme that providers of ID sign up to in order for it to be valid as proof of age. There is no equivalent blanket scheme for ID that older people are likely to have.
In 2017 for example the minimum number of votes across the country needed to take down Theresa May (or more realistically have her form a true minority government) was something like 2500.
We have an extremely disproportional electoral system.
If we are talking about 0.25% on average then I doubt it could have changed much in these local elections (back in May in England and Northern Ireland).
If anybody wants to play with the data from the General Election in 2017 they can do so here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2017_United_Kin...
Sort the table by "Mjrty." in ascending order. Right at the top we see wins for SNP, Labour, SNP, Labour, and Labour that easily could have been wins for Lib Dem, Tories, Tories, Tories, and Tories.
And 67m is nothing close to the size of the electorate of the local elections that number comes from.
And as another commenter wrote, a small number of votes can matter a great deal.
It also says nothing about the remaining 30% except that they "brough a type that was not accepted". We don't actually know if they even had the right to vote.
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/about-14000-people-england-...
Those who did have the right to vote could have gotten a free Voter Authority Certificate before the election:
https://www.gov.uk/apply-for-photo-id-voter-authority-certif...
During the recent elections in England about 14,000 people were denied a vote due to lack of ID.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-65988959