Snap General Election called

[Digby]

Only the one populated by fetid donkey pizzle as laid out in the old testament.

I bow to your greater knowledge of the word of god

[Mikey Brown]

Laura Keunsberg seemingly trying to distract from her f*ck up over the hospital situation by announcing on TV that she's already seen the postal votes, or been informed about them "by people on both sides". Is she a proper arsehole or just a moron?

The postal votes are open for inspection, have been for days, what's the problem with her comments here?

I’m not clear on where the line is. I may be totally wrong and just reaching for an excuse to call her a dickhead, but I’ve read a few different takes on it.

Surely any proclamation of results that may affect the vote is pretty illegal, but I can’t find the source now as she’s deleted it.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Laura Keunsberg seemingly trying to distract from her f*ck up over the hospital situation by announcing on TV that she's already seen the postal votes, or been informed about them "by people on both sides". Is she a proper arsehole or just a moron?

She can be relied on to cover the Tories' blushes. Notice that when she found out that she'd been lied to about the supposed punch, she didn't accuse anyone of having lied to her. Coz that would have been embarrassing to them and might disrupt her cosy relationship.

[Sandydragon]

Only the one populated by fetid donkey pizzle as laid out in the old testament.

I must re read scripture, I Might have missed that...

[Which Tyler]

Laura Keunsberg seemingly trying to distract from her f*ck up over the hospital situation by announcing on TV that she's already seen the postal votes, or been informed about them "by people on both sides". Is she a proper arsehole or just a moron?

The postal votes are open for inspection, have been for days, what's the problem with her comments here?

I’m not clear on where the line is. I may be totally wrong and just reaching for an excuse to call her a dickhead, but I’ve read a few different takes on it.

Surely any proclamation of results that may affect the vote is pretty illegal, but I can’t find the source now as she’s deleted it.

My understanding - which may well be wrong - is that the postal votes (that have arrived) have the first envelope opened, and then the ballot paper, inside the sealed second envelope, wait until counting begins before being opened.
If I'm right in this, then the only thing we can categorically say is how many postal votes have been received.

[Stom]

Someone’s done what I started properly.

Paula Surridge (@p_surridge) Tweeted:
The places where turnout went up in 2017 were more diverse, more highly educated and had more Labour voters in 2015. These also appear to the places where new registrations are higher this time

https://t.co/WwLjGsQFum.

[Digby]

The postal votes are open for inspection, have been for days, what's the problem with her comments here?

I’m not clear on where the line is. I may be totally wrong and just reaching for an excuse to call her a dickhead, but I’ve read a few different takes on it.

Surely any proclamation of results that may affect the vote is pretty illegal, but I can’t find the source now as she’s deleted it.

My understanding - which may well be wrong - is that the postal votes (that have arrived) have the first envelope opened, and then the ballot paper, inside the sealed second envelope, wait until counting begins before being opened.
If I'm right in this, then the only thing we can categorically say is how many postal votes have been received.

I think they can count away if they want, what they cannot do is announce any such findings as that would be deemed an attempt to influence votes

So if she's just said she's been advised on counts by both sides that's fine, if however she's reporting an actual count that's a massive problem, if she's suggesting a lead for x or y it's into a grey area but the BBC at a minimum would start to take a dim view I presume

[Stom]

I’m not clear on where the line is. I may be totally wrong and just reaching for an excuse to call her a dickhead, but I’ve read a few different takes on it.

Surely any proclamation of results that may affect the vote is pretty illegal, but I can’t find the source now as she’s deleted it.

My understanding - which may well be wrong - is that the postal votes (that have arrived) have the first envelope opened, and then the ballot paper, inside the sealed second envelope, wait until counting begins before being opened.
If I'm right in this, then the only thing we can categorically say is how many postal votes have been received.

I think they can count away if they want, what they cannot do is announce any such findings as that would be deemed an attempt to influence votes

So if she's just said she's been advised on counts by both sides that's fine, if however she's reporting an actual count that's a massive problem, if she's suggesting a lead for x or y it's into a grey area but the BBC at a minimum would start to take a dim view I presume

As I understand, no, they're not allowed to start counting...They're only really allowed to count the total number of votes, not who they're for.

And she has given things away. She's said: "Things look grim for Labour", which is influencing one way or the other. It might help one party or the other, but it still might change opinions.

[Digby]

My understanding - which may well be wrong - is that the postal votes (that have arrived) have the first envelope opened, and then the ballot paper, inside the sealed second envelope, wait until counting begins before being opened.
If I'm right in this, then the only thing we can categorically say is how many postal votes have been received.

I think they can count away if they want, what they cannot do is announce any such findings as that would be deemed an attempt to influence votes

So if she's just said she's been advised on counts by both sides that's fine, if however she's reporting an actual count that's a massive problem, if she's suggesting a lead for x or y it's into a grey area but the BBC at a minimum would start to take a dim view I presume

As I understand, no, they're not allowed to start counting...They're only really allowed to count the total number of votes, not who they're for.

And she has given things away. She's said: "Things look grim for Labour", which is influencing one way or the other. It might help one party or the other, but it still might change opinions.

Count was a poor choice of word, they're able to look at the votes as they commence opening them, they're just not supposed to talk about it. If she's gone as far as to venture the opinion things are 'looking grim' then if she's not actually on thin ice she's venturing out on the ice in a manner that isn't wise. That would be extremely poor form from the Beeb

[Mellsblue]

They can’t count the postal votes until the polls are closed. They can count the number of envelopes returned. Rule of thumb is the higher the number of postal voters the better it is for the conservatives given the demographics of those who use postal votes. Another rule of thumb is that any info stating a good return for the leader in the polls, when the lead is a clear one, is bad news for said leader as it can produce apathy amongst their supporters, potentially suppressing the ability to get out the vote.
If Kuenssberg had helped anyone here it’s the Labour Party.

[Stom]

They can’t count the postal votes until the polls are closed. They can count the number of envelopes returned. Rule of thumb is the higher the number of postal voters the better it is for the conservatives given the demographics of those who use postal votes. Another rule of thumb is that any info stating a good return for the leader in the polls, when the lead is a clear one, is bad news for said leader as it can produce apathy amongst their supporters, potentially suppressing the ability to get out the vote.
If Kuenssberg had helped anyone here it’s the Labour Party.

That's kinda beside the point, here, it's poor form.

[Mellsblue]

They can’t count the postal votes until the polls are closed. They can count the number of envelopes returned. Rule of thumb is the higher the number of postal voters the better it is for the conservatives given the demographics of those who use postal votes. Another rule of thumb is that any info stating a good return for the leader in the polls, when the lead is a clear one, is bad news for said leader as it can produce apathy amongst their supporters, potentially suppressing the ability to get out the vote.
If Kuenssberg had helped anyone here it’s the Labour Party.

That's kinda beside the point, here, it's poor form.

Yeah. I agree. I was more pointing out that despite being an alleged Conservative agent and the BBC allegedly being institutionally bias in their favour she hasn’t done them any favours here.

[Son of Mathonwy]

They can’t count the postal votes until the polls are closed. They can count the number of envelopes returned. Rule of thumb is the higher the number of postal voters the better it is for the conservatives given the demographics of those who use postal votes. Another rule of thumb is that any info stating a good return for the leader in the polls, when the lead is a clear one, is bad news for said leader as it can produce apathy amongst their supporters, potentially suppressing the ability to get out the vote.
If Kuenssberg had helped anyone here it’s the Labour Party.

But is that actually true? You could also argue that it would make potential Labour supporters feel their cause is lost and therefore induce apathy in them. Is there any evidence either way on this one?

[Mellsblue]

They can’t count the postal votes until the polls are closed. They can count the number of envelopes returned. Rule of thumb is the higher the number of postal voters the better it is for the conservatives given the demographics of those who use postal votes. Another rule of thumb is that any info stating a good return for the leader in the polls, when the lead is a clear one, is bad news for said leader as it can produce apathy amongst their supporters, potentially suppressing the ability to get out the vote.
If Kuenssberg had helped anyone here it’s the Labour Party.

But is that actually true? You could also argue that it would make potential Labour supporters feel their cause is lost and therefore induce apathy in them. Is there any evidence either way on this one?

From everything I’ve read, admittedly years ago, when there’s a clear leader in the polls only the voters of the front runner suffer apathy. For those behind but, crucially, still in with a chance of winning, it helps to get out the vote. The rallying call of ‘we need every vote’ is a powerful one to increase turnout, especially as the polls have been closing over the past few weeks - there is no feeling that the cause is lost by Labour that I’ve seen. Do you know differently? Other than Ashworth, that is. I’d imagine even more so when you’re entire campaign has been about being the underdog, against the establishment and against the bias media. I’m talking Labour not Trump, by the way. The ‘we’ve already won’ is also a powerful one to suppress turnout. Conservative campaigners were under strict instructions not to mention the polls during the 2017 campaign for that very reason.

[Mikey Brown]

You can really argue that one either way.

[Mellsblue]

You can really argue that one either way.

What are you basing that on?

[Mikey Brown]

That you just said people will hear they've 'won already so not bother voting'. There's a logic to it but that doesn't even qualify as anecdotal does it?

Is there any sort of research done in to what causes people to not vote? Are there some figures that suggest people have been convinced enough by the postal votes to not vote themselves?

[Mellsblue]

That you just said people will hear they've 'won already so not bother voting'. There's a logic to it but that doesn't even qualify as anecdotal does it?

Is there any sort of research done in to what causes people to not vote? Are there some figures that suggest people have been convinced enough by the postal votes to not vote themselves?

I didn’t just say that, though. What I did say is that I’ve read this when studying politics and since. It’s a pretty well known phenomenon, eg, again, Conservatives not allowed to mention the polls in 2017 due to a sizeable lead potentially leading to voter apathy.
As I said originally, it’s, as far as I’m aware, a ‘rule of thumb’ that this is true. I used ‘rule of thumb’ for a reason. However, people clued up on this have written about it. I’m not aware of any empirical studies. Do you know of any sources saying it’s not a widely held belief?

[Mikey Brown]

Nope. I wouldn't have said 'either way' if I had any evidence it worked one way or the other. I'm not suggesting you claimed it is a hard and fast rule, I just said you can argue it either way and people will respond differently if told about results ahead of the vote.

I get what you're saying, but it doesn't stop any potential labour voter (for example, particularly one who's never heard this rule) being a bit dispirited to hear Labour are getting trashed, then not vote themselves.

I don't particularly see this being a big factor in the results, I just don't see it as any sort of evidence in the case against Keunssberg being a Tory shill either.

[Stom]

Nope. I wouldn't have said 'either way' if I had any evidence it worked one way or the other. I'm not suggesting you claimed it is a hard and fast rule, I just said you can argue it either way and people will respond differently if told about results ahead of the vote.

I get what you're saying, but it doesn't stop any potential labour voter (for example, particularly one who's never heard this rule) being a bit dispirited to hear Labour are getting trashed, then not vote themselves.

I don't particularly see this being a big factor in the results, I just don't see it as any sort of evidence in the case against Keunssberg being a Tory shill either.

Well, my dad thinks she's a Labour shill...

So there's that...

Anyway, I voted.

And I have to say, it was insanely easy. The UK needs to introduce some kind of identification process, this is waaaay to easy to commit fraud.

Any Russian could have walked up and voted in my place.

[Big D]

Has any leader of the opposition ever lost 2 elections and stayed on with any credibility?

[Stom]

Has any leader of the opposition ever lost 2 elections and stayed on with any credibility?

He's given hints he's going to go if Labour lose.

[Big D]

Has any leader of the opposition ever lost 2 elections and stayed on with any credibility?

He's given hints he's going to go if Labour lose.

Yes, but I am not sure he will can be held up as a potential PM, when he has (potentially) lost two elections to May and Johnson at a time when in theory the opposition should be a hell of a lot closer.

[Stom]

Has any leader of the opposition ever lost 2 elections and stayed on with any credibility?

He's given hints he's going to go if Labour lose.

Yes, but I am not sure he will can be held up as a potential PM, when he has (potentially) lost two elections to May and Johnson at a time when in theory the opposition should be a hell of a lot closer.

In theory is all well and good, but the press will still have dug up all kinds of shit on whoever the leader of the opposition was.

This is an election of lies, based upon a lie about Brexit, a faulty referendum whose results should have been null and void for the lies in the campaign, and that will destroy a fundamental part of Britain.

What's going to happen if I chose to return home for whatever reason?

I could get in, my kids could get in...but who's going to safeguard the rights of my wife?

And is that the kind of place you feel welcome in?

This is an election that has been built on lies, has had lies rammed down everyone's throat, and because of years of lies, people lap it up as if it's the truth...

And when you engage them...they turn their back on you because they have no answer for reality.

A Conservative win tomorrow, unless somehow Boris is toppled and the Tories meltdown, will spend the end for so many people's relationship with the United Kingdom.

And the end for that Union itself.

Disgusting.

[Mellsblue]

Nope. I wouldn't have said 'either way' if I had any evidence it worked one way or the other. I'm not suggesting you claimed it is a hard and fast rule, I just said you can argue it either way and people will respond differently if told about results ahead of the vote.

I get what you're saying, but it doesn't stop any potential labour voter (for example, particularly one who's never heard this rule) being a bit dispirited to hear Labour are getting trashed, then not vote themselves.

I don't particularly see this being a big factor in the results, I just don't see it as any sort of evidence in the case against Keunssberg being a Tory shill either.

But Lab aren’t getting ‘trashed’. That’s the crucial point. As I stated earlier, is that the voters of, in this case, Labour must believe they can win. With the polls closing over the last few weeks and political commentators stating that a hung parliament is a distinctly possibility, Labour supporters will still feel they have a chance to form a govt.
To clarify, with the current set of circumstances in which Kuenssberg made her statement it will/should be the Conservatives who stand to lose.
But, yep. I can’t really see it affecting too many people. To be honest, the biggest fallout from the leaking of the news may be that we’ve both wasted quite a few minutes achieving nothing. Turn that into days, weeks or months and we could be politicians ourselves.