Re: Snap General Election called
Posted: Wed Dec 11, 2019 4:29 pm
I bow to your greater knowledge of the word of godmorepork 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 godmorepork wrote:Only the one populated by fetid donkey pizzle as laid out in the old testament.
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.Digby wrote:The postal votes are open for inspection, have been for days, what's the problem with her comments here?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.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?
I must re read scripture, I Might have missed that...morepork wrote:Only the one populated by fetid donkey pizzle as laid out in the old testament.
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.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.Digby wrote:The postal votes are open for inspection, have been for days, what's the problem with her comments here?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?
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.
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 votesWhich 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.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.Digby wrote:
The postal votes are open for inspection, have been for days, what's the problem with her comments here?
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.
If I'm right in this, then the only thing we can categorically say is how many postal votes have been received.
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.Digby wrote: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 votesWhich 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.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.
If I'm right in this, then the only thing we can categorically say is how many postal votes have been received.
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
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 BeebStom wrote: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.Digby wrote: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 votesWhich 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.
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
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.
That's kinda beside the point, here, it's poor form.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.
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.Stom wrote:That's kinda beside the point, here, it's poor form.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?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.
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.Son of Mathonwy wrote: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 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.
What are you basing that on?Mikey Brown wrote:You can really argue that one either way.
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.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?
Well, my dad thinks she's a Labour shill...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.
He's given hints he's going to go if Labour lose.Big D wrote:Has any leader of the opposition ever lost 2 elections and stayed on with any credibility?
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 wrote:He's given hints he's going to go if Labour lose.Big D wrote:Has any leader of the opposition ever lost 2 elections and stayed on with any credibility?
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.Big D wrote: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 wrote:He's given hints he's going to go if Labour lose.Big D wrote:Has any leader of the opposition ever lost 2 elections and stayed on with any credibility?
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.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.