RugbyRebels

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.

Mellsblue wrote: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.

Stom wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: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.

Mellsblue wrote: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?

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: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.

You can really argue that one either way.

Mikey Brown wrote:You can really argue that one either way.

What are you basing that on?

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?

Mikey Brown wrote: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?

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.

Mikey Brown wrote: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.

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

Big D wrote: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.

Stom wrote:

Big D wrote: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.

Big D wrote:

Stom wrote:

Big D wrote: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.

Mikey Brown wrote: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.

Stom wrote:
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.

Careful. If people think you’re a Tory you’ll be accused of disenfranchising the poor.

Mellsblue wrote:

Stom wrote:
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.

Careful. If people think you’re a Tory you’ll be accused of disenfranchising the poor.

The ID card bull was insane. In Hungary, you need a registration card to do anything. It’s free. It’s just easier.

And the ID card is also free. Whereas a UK passport is £90.

Stom wrote: 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.

Why would any Russian bother though? You'd have to pick the name of someone who hadn't yet voted (and preferably wouldn't later in the day to avoid investigation) and risk arrest in order to gain one extra vote for your side. Why would anyone do that - it's miniscule reward for the risk. This is shown by there being 6 suspected cases of electoral fraud by impersonation in the last two elections.

And on the flip side, if you require ID, then you disenfranchise people who don't have it, don't have it in the right name/address, don't want to produce it, or who forgot to bring it, ruling out thousands of votes to solve a problem that doesn't actually seem to exist.

I don't get why anyone would be in favour of making voting more difficult (except for politicians with a vested interest because they don't normally get votes from those without ID like students, poor people, etc).

Puja

Stom wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Stom wrote:
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.

Careful. If people think you’re a Tory you’ll be accused of disenfranchising the poor.

The ID card bull was insane. In Hungary, you need a registration card to do anything. It’s free. It’s just easier.

And the ID card is also free. Whereas a UK passport is £90.

Not talking about the ID cards. The Tory proposals/trials ranged from everyday pieces of ID through to a passport/driving licence. The trial in my area:

1no photo ID
or
2no non-photo ID (including polling card)

The council will provide ID free of charge to individuals who do not have the correct ID.

Free ID!!!! Not quite what the billionaire attack press and their allies in Labour would have you believe.

Mellsblue wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote: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.

I'd question what real difference in using the term 'trashed' has (and I did say it was just an example) as opposed to 'the labour results being grim' but your final point is probably more worthwhile.

Mellsblue wrote:

Stom wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Careful. If people think you’re a Tory you’ll be accused of disenfranchising the poor.

The ID card bull was insane. In Hungary, you need a registration card to do anything. It’s free. It’s just easier.

And the ID card is also free. Whereas a UK passport is £90.

Not talking about the ID cards. The Tory proposals/trials ranged from everyday pieces of ID through to a passport/driving licence. The trial in my area:

1no photo ID
or
2no non-photo ID (including polling card)

The council will provide ID free of charge to individuals who do not have the correct ID.

Free ID!!!! Not quite what the billionaire attack press and their allies in Labour would have you believe.

lol.

But, yeah, I was pretty disgusted when the UK govt. rejected ID cards. I think that was the beginning of the end for our role in the EU.

Shame.

Mellsblue wrote:

Stom wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Careful. If people think you’re a Tory you’ll be accused of disenfranchising the poor.

The ID card bull was insane. In Hungary, you need a registration card to do anything. It’s free. It’s just easier.

And the ID card is also free. Whereas a UK passport is £90.

Not talking about the ID cards. The Tory proposals/trials ranged from everyday pieces of ID through to a passport/driving licence. The trial in my area:

1no photo ID
or
2no non-photo ID (including polling card)

The council will provide ID free of charge to individuals who do not have the correct ID.

Free ID!!!! Not quite what the billionaire attack press and their allies in Labour would have you believe.

But why do we even need it? What problem does showing ID at polling stations even solve?

Even with free ID and a UK-wide database on offer (and which branch of the magic money tree is that coming from?), you have to prove that you are that person, which requires ID to do. I work as a mortgage broker and you would not believe the number of issues that I have with people whose ID is in the wrong name, wrong format, wrong address - and that's from a set of people who are older, more mature, and very rarely transient (I don't deal with many students, couchsurfers, or people living on houseboats, for example). It's an additional barrier to voting which seems utterly unnecessary.

Note - I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea of ID cards in general, just of ID being needed to vote.

Puja

Puja wrote:But why do we even need it? What problem does showing ID at polling stations even solve?

Even with free ID and a UK-wide database on offer (and which branch of the magic money tree is that coming from?), you have to prove that you are that person, which requires ID to do. I work as a mortgage broker and you would not believe the number of issues that I have with people whose ID is in the wrong name, wrong format, wrong address - and that's from a set of people who are older, more mature, and very rarely transient (I don't deal with many students, couchsurfers, or people living on houseboats, for example). It's an additional barrier to voting which seems utterly unnecessary.

Note - I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea of ID cards in general, just of ID being needed to vote.

Agreed, introduing ID due to fear of voter fraud is a solution looking for a problem, as it's believed to be essentially non-existent in this country.

If we had national ID cards; then by all means include tham at voting; but we don't, and using voting as the rationale to introduce them is utterly insane.

The tory suggestion of introducing voter ID anyway, in a country without national ID cards was purely an exercise in voter disenfranchisement.

The "new labour" suggestion of a national ID card that contained a chip with all your personal details, such medical and financial(?) history etc was completely braindead, and an exercise in free identity theft.


A potential national ID card that contains a name, photo and maybe a finger print; and simply says that if the face and print match the person in front of you, then they are who they say they are - then that seems reasonable (though I'd still vote against any potential legislation saying that it's compulsory to carry it - I can't remember if the new labour proposal included that or not)

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Stom wrote:
The ID card bull was insane. In Hungary, you need a registration card to do anything. It’s free. It’s just easier.

And the ID card is also free. Whereas a UK passport is £90.

Not talking about the ID cards. The Tory proposals/trials ranged from everyday pieces of ID through to a passport/driving licence. The trial in my area:

1no photo ID
or
2no non-photo ID (including polling card)

The council will provide ID free of charge to individuals who do not have the correct ID.

Free ID!!!! Not quite what the billionaire attack press and their allies in Labour would have you believe.

But why do we even need it? What problem does showing ID at polling stations even solve?

Even with free ID and a UK-wide database on offer (and which branch of the magic money tree is that coming from?), you have to prove that you are that person, which requires ID to do. I work as a mortgage broker and you would not believe the number of issues that I have with people whose ID is in the wrong name, wrong format, wrong address - and that's from a set of people who are older, more mature, and very rarely transient (I don't deal with many students, couchsurfers, or people living on houseboats, for example). It's an additional barrier to voting which seems utterly unnecessary.

Note - I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea of ID cards in general, just of ID being needed to vote.

Puja

Not wanting to get to involved after an interjection just to make a flippant comment. When will I learn! I’d have thought having zero voter fraud is a laudable aim not that the issue in the UK is particularly high up the agenda. My point really is that it’s not a despicable Tory plot to disenfranchise poor people.