RugbyRebels

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote: That's how it is for Labour, they can either respond to that or fall victim to it. Also I'd prefer more people read a more lefty opinion piece, though I confess I go as far as the Guardian as an everyday thing, but there are lefty publications, it's just not enough people read them, which might at other times influence how Labour presents itself

Labour simply doesn't find itself in even lefty country, there's a reason the Tories are the normal party of government no matter how much that annoys them (and me) at times

Yes, of course, silly Labour. All they needed to do was buy a few national newspapers, it's their own fault really.

There are plenty of left wing publications, and there are plenty of left wing bodies with the money to publish, again there's a shortage of people wanting to read them which is the actual problem, people tend to chose something rather more right leaning. Labour can either move to the people, or hope the people move to where it currently is, only one of those looks a viable election strategy to me

I think that's because socialism in the UK is tied so strongly to the Labour movement.

And therefore to the unions.

So socialism is a harder sell to anyone with businesses because companies do have a lot of problems with bureaucracy around the ability to sack people, among other things. And it's a stupidly hard balance to make between protecting the many and safeguarding against misuse.

But I think it does make it harder for parties like Labour to make inroads. Which is one of the reasons I support the creation of a new party unburdened by the unions.

It has echoes to Hungary with the "difficult" situation with socialism. A position that is so much more nuanced than other former communist countries. And worth study, I believe. I might look it up some time.

I was reading a poorly researched article in the Granuiad about disregarding the youth vote.

And it got me thinking about the breakdown of new voter registration by constituency.

I took a look and had a little fiddle with the figures in this doc. If anyone is interested.

I haven't got far, but I thought it was worth comparing the new voter registration with the leave vote and the result in their constituency.

And it does leave me with a bad feeling...

If another ref were to happen, it does appear that, while the opposite result may happen across the country, individual constituencies would not change much.

We are getting a lot of new registrations in constituencies that voted remain. And those seats were generally Labour seats in 2017, too.

So those new votes aren't going to have much of an impact at this election, thanks to FPTP.

This could be the first election I can remember where Labour's vote share is more than their seat share.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: It's difficult for the opposition when most of the media ignore what Boris has written and consider Corbyn to be the one with the bigger racism issues despite having written or said absolutely nothing racist.

That's how it is for Labour, they can either respond to that or fall victim to it. Also I'd prefer more people read a more lefty opinion piece, though I confess I go as far as the Guardian as an everyday thing, but there are lefty publications, it's just not enough people read them, which might at other times influence how Labour presents itself

Labour simply doesn't find itself in even lefty country, there's a reason the Tories are the normal party of government no matter how much that annoys them (and me) at times

Yes, of course, silly Labour. All they needed to do was buy a few national newspapers, it's their own fault really.

Or elect an electable leader.

Sandydragon wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote: That's how it is for Labour, they can either respond to that or fall victim to it. Also I'd prefer more people read a more lefty opinion piece, though I confess I go as far as the Guardian as an everyday thing, but there are lefty publications, it's just not enough people read them, which might at other times influence how Labour presents itself

Labour simply doesn't find itself in even lefty country, there's a reason the Tories are the normal party of government no matter how much that annoys them (and me) at times

Yes, of course, silly Labour. All they needed to do was buy a few national newspapers, it's their own fault really.

Or elect an electable leader.

It's an odd thought heading into Christmas at just how happy I'd be were I able to vote for Yvette Cooper tomorrow

Stom wrote:I was reading a poorly researched article in the Granuiad about disregarding the youth vote.

And it got me thinking about the breakdown of new voter registration by constituency.

I took a look and had a little fiddle with the figures in this doc. If anyone is interested.

I haven't got far, but I thought it was worth comparing the new voter registration with the leave vote and the result in their constituency.

And it does leave me with a bad feeling...

If another ref were to happen, it does appear that, while the opposite result may happen across the country, individual constituencies would not change much.

We are getting a lot of new registrations in constituencies that voted remain. And those seats were generally Labour seats in 2017, too.

So those new votes aren't going to have much of an impact at this election, thanks to FPTP.

This could be the first election I can remember where Labour's vote share is more than their seat share.

That's the shitty situation with this shitty system. A large chunk of any change you care to mention will be lost in safe seats. Tactical voting coupled with a sneaky last minute surge for Labour are all we can hope for now.

Couple of fairly important articles recently that I haven't noticed being covered.

FirstDraftNews

88% of conservative's paid facebook ad.s have been found to be untruthful or misleading compared to 0% for labour and 16.5% for LibDem.
Whilst facebook (officially) has policies in place to counter such things - Zuckerberg doesn't apply them to political parties - presumably because political parties spend a lot of money on facebook and don't like being called liars.


YorkshirePost

Editor of the Yorkshire Post replies to critics on the 4 year old pneumonia story; basically saying "journalists have a legal duty to fact check - which we did; Sheree on facebook doesn't, and didn't; and oh look, it was the first and last post from an account that has since disappeared and is unavailable for scrutiny".



ByLineTimes

Dissects how these fake stories get out and given legitimacy by mainstream media / journalists; covers Jack on the floor, Johnson's phone "theft", the Matt Hancock "assault"


And now there's this: Guardian Some disagreement (and my speakers are too crap) as to whether the aide says "oh for fucks sake" or "oh fuck off" on live TV; whilst Boris hides in a milkvan to avoid giving an interview.

Which Tyler wrote:Couple of fairly important articles recently that I haven't noticed being covered.

FirstDraftNews

88% of conservative's paid facebook ad.s have been found to be untruthful or misleading compared to 0% for labour and 16.5% for LibDem.
Whilst facebook (officially) has policies in place to counter such things - Zuckerberg doesn't apply them to political parties - presumably because political parties spend a lot of money on facebook and don't like being called liars.

That one was on the BBC (I linked it at the top of the page), but I can understand if you missed it because they buried the lede under the headline: "General election 2019: Ads are 'indecent, dishonest and untruthful'" rather than noting *whose* ads were indecent, dishonest, and untruthful.

Puja

Which Tyler wrote: whilst Boris hides in a milkvan to avoid giving an interview.

Of course he's not the only one, Corbyn has bottled the Today interview. Though it's also worth noting in addition to bottling being interview by a wig that Boris too has bottled the Today interview

Btw, was Boris actually in a milk van (with a milk maid?) or is that a play on words around bottling it?

Puja wrote:That one was on the BBC (I linked it at the top of the page), but I can understand if you missed it because they buried the lede under the headline: "General election 2019: Ads are 'indecent, dishonest and untruthful'" rather than noting *whose* ads were indecent, dishonest, and untruthful.

Oops, don't quite know how I missed that, especially as it was replied to, giving context. I can only think that I saw it last night, and forgot having done so this morning.
It is worth noting that the findings are about paid adverts only, not other material generated by candidates / activists/

Digby wrote:

Which Tyler wrote: whilst Boris hides in a milkvan to avoid giving an interview.

Of course he's not the only one, Corbyn has bottled the Today interview. Though it's also worth noting in addition to bottling being interview by a wig that Boris too has bottled the Today interview

Btw, was Boris actually in a milk van (with a milk maid?) or is that a play on words around bottling it?

I think what really makes it newsworthy is that Johnson's aide told the reporter to fuck off on live TV (or said "for fucks sake"); and that he literally hid in a milkvan. No puns on bottling things; he hid inside a refridgerated van used to deliver milk to houses (though most outlets seem to be saying he "hid in a fridge" which makes it seem a little more dramatic; if only a little. Had he just walked away without comment it would have been entirely un-newsworthy.
I haven't seen the Corbyn one, did he actively hide? or did he just carry on walking, trying to pretend that the interviewer wasn't there?

Today as in the flagship morning news broadcast on Radio 4, not Today as in today. They've had all the other party leaders do an interview, it's just Corbyn and Boris dodging them. And it's an extremely influential programme, partly it still gains big daily audiences even if shrinking , but also it's probably the most influential programme for the political/liberal elite, meaning rightly or wrongly its influence is more than the listener numbers in a fashion that's perhaps more so than any other programme

Ah, ok - so more akin to Boris repeated refusal to be formally interviewed, rather than Boris's hiding in a milkvan whilst his aide tells a live reporter to fuck off.


Turns out that (Sheree) the originator of the fake story that the 4 year old was a fake pic; who claimed that her account was hacked and that she'd never posted it - lied about that (she replied to comments on it); and has a son who is friends with Matt Hancock - who would, of course, have no possible reason to try to get this lie out there.




And now for something completely different:

Zuckerburg sucks donkey cocks in Hell. He is just a money grubbing piece of shit.

So what you're saying is you believe in hell.

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

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?

Mikey Brown wrote: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?

morepork wrote: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

Digby wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote: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.

Mikey Brown wrote: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.

morepork wrote: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...

Mikey Brown wrote:

Digby wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote: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.

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.

Which Tyler wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:

Digby wrote:
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

Digby wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:
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.

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:

Which Tyler wrote: 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