I think it’s really hard being BBC political editor. I used to slag off both Andrew Marr (up Blair’s arse) and Nick Robinson (toenails Robinson).
The fact is that as ‘establishment’ political journalists they get privileged information first from No.10 and other Government sources first as they always want to make BBC headline news. And the political editor has to make very quick decisions on that.
So they often end up breaking big news first (that sometimes isn’t the full picture) and by necessity end up having close relationships with Government.
The answer is to cut the BBC free of its licence fee mooring.
They might then eventually learn to find perspective.
Yes they may have to tell the truth rather than just be state propaganda unit
Like the Daily Mail?
I`m getting fed up with BBC bashing. A fine British institution and cracking value for money. I`d pay the annual fee for R4 alone. Same again for The Apprentice and Dragon`s Den. Thrice the fee for Peaky Blinders.
Good for you, go on then.
Personally I don't care for the BBC but do watch other live TV and am forced at the penalty of prison to pay for the BBC even if I want to watch other channels. As for radio, plenty of stations exist with commercials. If you want to pay for R4 or listen to ads to pay for it good for you but why should I be taxed to support your interests?
Because it`s a public utility, like the NHS, libraries, roads and the royal family?
As I have repeatedly said, a Conservative majority of at least 80 and probably between 1983 and 1987.
I thank you all. And thank goodness there's only a day and a half before you recognise my brilliance.
I recognise it now sir, but I think you'll still be very wrong.
I am with RCS.
I think a lot of the country does not want a further 5 years of weak governments and fudge.
They just want things to be done and Brexit over with and that means voting Tory.
LOL, are you a comedian to trade
A very bad one, I know.
How many seats do you think the SNP will win?
Well, I did think about 46 , but if you believe whats on here the Tories are surging and they are going to get clobbered. I still think 44-46 , but may be kidding myself.
As I have repeatedly said, a Conservative majority of at least 80 and probably between 1983 and 1987.
I thank you all. And thank goodness there's only a day and a half before you recognise my brilliance.
I recognise it now sir, but I think you'll still be very wrong.
I am with RCS.
I think a lot of the country does not want a further 5 years of weak governments and fudge.
They just want things to be done and Brexit over with and that means voting Tory.
LOL, are you a comedian to trade
A very bad one, I know.
How many seats do you think the SNP will win?
Well, I did think about 46 , but if you believe whats on here the Tories are surging and they are going to get clobbered. I still think 44-46 , but may be kidding myself.
Has somebody been sounding the KLAXON? You seem tetchy.
Is it me, or is this the quietest election campaign for a long time?
I've seen almost no evidence of electioneering wherever I've been, Locally here in the safe seat of Romford, the Tories have never got out their stakeboards, as in previous years, and have done just the one leaflet delivery. Clearly they thought it was such a good leaflet that I got it again in the post to make sure I read it. I also had a letter before my postal vote arrived, and what looked like their canvas calling card, put through the letter box without calling (I was in). Presumably the local party was told to get down to Rainham and Dagenham. I had Labour, Green and LD addresses in the post only in the last few days. A couple of times I've seen Tory and Labour activists leafletting at the station, but less often than in previous elections.
Travelling around, nearby I have also seen no Tory posters at all in either Upminster & Hornchurch or Brentwood & Ongar, but I have seen a couple of LD diamonds in the latter. In central London I've seen a few window posters (mostly LD) in Westminster and a scattering of LD and Labour in other Islington/Camden/Lambeth/Southwark seats.
Presumably this points to very targeted activity in battleground seats, but it does leave a feeling that all parties are taking the electorate for granted, even more than ever.
It's all going on in the marginals. I live in the Canterbury constituency and had a deluge of leaflets from Tories and Labour and lots of campaigners and street stalls for Rosie Duffield. And was in Eastbourne today and, well, it's pretty lively there as well! (Including the incumbent telling a voter to "fuck off" when asked what he stands for...)
I'd seriously consider voting or the latter incumbent
He did a voice to camera video apology and sent it to the local paper:
The words "that are in" mean that the information must have come from the receiving centres. It can't have come from people who say they voted postally. Even if it did come from voters, it is unlawful to publish "any statement relating to the way in which voters have voted at the election where that statement is (or might reasonably be taken to be) based on information given by voters after they have voted".
That specifically refers to exit polls though. Even if it didn't, the above wording alone hasn't been broken.
Is it that after 6 weeks of GE campaign that the lead is actually exactly as we started? Tories gained initially as BXP got squeezed, Labour then narrowed the lead by squeezing LD.
Has @bbclaurak broken the law by telling 2 million viewers the postal votes are grim for Labour in huge swathes of the country?
Yes because the votes should not have been seen.
Mind you does it get Labour votes out tomorrow and / or keep Tory "voters" from voting
Pretty sure party officials watch the opening and counting of postal votes.
If they do they should be stopped. I think postal voting should be stopped except in extreme or exceptional cases.
Couldn'y it be argued that postal voting a kind of infringement of the principle of a secret ballot?
That is why the law is that papers must be kept face down. The purpose of the verification is to confirm that the identity and signatures of the postal voter tally up with their application, and that the paper returned is the one that was sent, and clearly if you catch a glimpse of the ballot paper then that person’s vote isn’t secret. Any responsible ERO (and most are very responsible) should do what he or she can to make sure papers are kept face down. So as a scrutineer your only chance is to catch a glimpse of a paper as it is being taken out of the envelope. Most people fold their papers over with the printed side inside, but occasionally someone folds it the other way so you might see the odd one, if you get a council staff member who is a little clumsy or slow. But they are supposed to stop the scrutineers seeing the face of the ballot papers, and most do.
Am sure that Antifrank was one of several posters (some of whom are still here) who remember Kerry McCarthy tweeting postal vote totals in 2010. She was very lucky to get off with a caution.
I think it’s really hard being BBC political editor. I used to slag off both Andrew Marr (up Blair’s arse) and Nick Robinson (toenails Robinson).
The fact is that as ‘establishment’ political journalists they get privileged information first from No.10 and other Government sources first as they always want to make BBC headline news. And the political editor has to make very quick decisions on that.
So they often end up breaking big news first (that sometimes isn’t the full picture) and by necessity end up having close relationships with Government.
The answer is to cut the BBC free of its licence fee mooring.
They might then eventually learn to find perspective.
Yes they may have to tell the truth rather than just be state propaganda unit
Like the Daily Mail?
I`m getting fed up with BBC bashing. A fine British institution and cracking value for money. I`d pay the annual fee for R4 alone. Same again for The Apprentice and Dragon`s Den. Thrice the fee for Peaky Blinders.
Tonight is interview night?
Indeed - my favourite episode
The one episode where you feel sorry for the candidates, since you know that the real competition is between the interviewers to see who can be the most aggressive/outrageous in order to get their clip into the show.
Is it better or no difference in terms of seats for Tories to win by 9, but it is say 41/32 vs 45/36 ?
The difference between the two can only come from minor parties, whose votes are spread very unevenly, so it won’t be a uniform swing (and no one is expecting UNS to ‘work’ this time anyway, although doubtless we will have to endure a night of Jeremy Vine pretending that it does). 8% coming from or going to the minor parties (the lion’s share of such would have to be the LibDems) could make a big difference, depending on where it falls. Since the LibDems are in contention mostly in Tory facing seats, the higher their vote, the worse for the Tories, and therefore of your two choices the Tories are better off with 45/36. In Scotland it could also mean they save most of their seats from the SNP, following the same logic.
Edit/ the other - possibly more important - factor is of course how the 4% differences for Tory and Labour fall in relation to each other, since these are very unlikely to be uniform. But working out who gains and loses in advance is impossible without just guessing at the assumptions you’d need to make.
Yes and my granny could have been my grandpa if only ********
Has @bbclaurak broken the law by telling 2 million viewers the postal votes are grim for Labour in huge swathes of the country?
Yes because the votes should not have been seen.
Mind you does it get Labour votes out tomorrow and / or keep Tory "voters" from voting
Pretty sure party officials watch the opening and counting of postal votes.
If they do they should be stopped. I think postal voting should be stopped except in extreme or exceptional cases.
Couldn'y it be argued that postal voting a kind of infringement of the principle of a secret ballot?
That is why the law is that papers must be kept face down. The purpose of the verification is to confirm that the identity and signatures of the postal voter tally up with their application, and that the paper returned is the one that was sent, and clearly if you catch a glimpse of the ballot paper then that person’s vote isn’t secret. Any responsible ERO (and most are very responsible) should do what he or she can to make sure papers are kept face down. So as a scrutineer your only chance is to catch a glimpse of a paper as it is being taken out of the envelope. Most people fold their papers over with the printed side inside, but occasionally someone folds it the other way so you might see the odd one, if you get a council staff member who is a little clumsy or slow. But they are supposed to stop the scrutineers seeing the face of the ballot papers, and most do.
Am sure that Antifrank was one of several posters (some of whom are still here) who remember Kerry McCarthy tweeting postal vote totals in 2010. She was very lucky to get off with a caution.
Davidson did it at Scottish referendum as well
I remember the 2010 kerfuffle very well. The BBC posted McCarthy's comments including the numbers and then they got posted on here. Then there was a hectic half an hour while everyone (including the BBC) started deleting any reference to them whatsoever.
Would you believe my broadband has just died and can't be repaired until Friday. So just the poxy mobile phone until a minihub arrives by courier tomorrow, when I will almost certainly be out. On election eve. How unlucky is that.
Can you access the WiFi of a neighbour? Ask for their WiFi password?
access a BT hotspot and pay for a days coverage, about a fiver
What’s wrong with these people? Old boy actually out and about doing his small part for democracy gets smacked in the mouth. Genuinely defies comprehension.
People have pent up frustration about politics or particular policies and when the canvasser arrives out of the blue they can get years’ worth of anger focused on them. A guy tried to hit me once and when I stepped backwards proceeded to shove me off his driveway. Technically it’s an assault but in a middle of an election what candidate wants to set the police on one of their own electors, knowing it will turn into a “my word, his word” scenario?
The 9 point leads for the Tories in some polls keep the interest going for tomorrow .
It could still end up a landslide or hung parliament .
So basically, we don’t have a clue what the result will be?
This is where the lack of Tory ground game is a bit of an issue. They need to be getting all those wavering voters out to the polling stations, but won't have much man power.
Weather's going to be foul across much of the country tomorrow. Isn't it about time we allowed on-line voting?
No. If you cant get to the thousands of easily accessible obviously labeled polling stations around the country where they will give you privacy to vote as you see fit and a pencil to mak your mark, then just contact the council and they will arrange for a postal vote for you in future.
The 9 point leads for the Tories in some polls keep the interest going for tomorrow .
It could still end up a landslide or hung parliament .
So basically, we don’t have a clue what the result will be?
A 9 point lead should deliver a working majority except in the scenario where there is a significantly higher than usual level of tactical voting among the opposing parties.
At this point I’d put the chance of a landslide higher than a hung parliament .
The reason being we’re not seeing the odd poll showing a much narrower gap , so for a hung parliament you’d need all the pollsters so far who’ve reported to be wrong .
We still have a few polls to go tonight so unless one of those turns up a shock I think then it’s looking good for the Tories .
Would you believe my broadband has just died and can't be repaired until Friday. So just the poxy mobile phone until a minihub arrives by courier tomorrow, when I will almost certainly be out. On election eve. How unlucky is that.
Can you access the WiFi of a neighbour? Ask for their WiFi password?
access a BT hotspot and pay for a days coverage, about a fiver
Would you believe my broadband has just died and can't be repaired until Friday. So just the poxy mobile phone until a minihub arrives by courier tomorrow, when I will almost certainly be out. On election eve. How unlucky is that.
Can you access the WiFi of a neighbour? Ask for their WiFi password?
access a BT hotspot and pay for a days coverage, about a fiver
It'll be free at the next election whenever PM Corbyn decides to call it!
I feel like the result of a hung parliament with similar numbers to now is wrong in this, and there's a bigger range of options, with 20-40 majority being tight still, and above that being dominant.https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1204777945023361024
“Mandate for a hard Brexit” - hardly seeing as they want a Canada style trade deal.
Shall we discuss our favorite Christmas movie rather than this paranoid politics shit?
It's my watch Christmas night out at the weekend. Some bright spark has decided it's going to be Christmas jumpers as the dress code. I've managed to get an authentic "Now I have a machine gun.." grey sweatshirt, with realistic bullet holes. Now that's a proper Chrimbo jumper!
Is it that after 6 weeks of GE campaign that the lead is actually exactly as we started? Tories gained initially as BXP got squeezed, Labour then narrowed the lead by squeezing LD.
That’s about the long and short of it. On the day it may be that the Lib Dem vote is firmer than that Brexit vote, with a last minute change in the polling booth to the best prospect to get Brexit done.
The words "that are in" mean that the information must have come from the receiving centres. It can't have come from people who say they voted postally. Even if it did come from voters, it is unlawful to publish "any statement relating to the way in which voters have voted at the election where that statement is (or might reasonably be taken to be) based on information given by voters after they have voted".
That specifically refers to exit polls though. Even if it didn't, the above wording alone hasn't been broken.
Agreed, she didn't suggest the information came from voters. I think she's safe from prosecution under s66A. It must have come from the receiving centres. Information about votes "that are in" only comes into existence once they're in.
There are some weird people about. As any canvasser knows.
One of my favourites was during my first successful local election. The big heraldic shields attached to the front gate should have been a warning, but anyhow the guy invited me straight in (another warning) and said there was something I could help him with (third warning). He was having trouble with the council because he had registered his house as a monastery with himself as the only monk, and was trying to persuade the council that as a religious institution his house was exempt from council tax. The council was having none of it and I had to wade through all the lengthy correspondence. Once we’d finished that I thought I could make an escape but then he produced another voluminous file full of 1970s press cuttings that apparently proved that his brother had been killed by the secret service who had made it look like a car accident.
That was one house that never got another canvass.
Great story! I had a chap who believed that MI5 had bugged his housekey, so they always knew when he was out - he detected subtle changes to his things when he came back - in particular his stamp collection had been moved several inches... (I said that was worrying but hard to take action on a single report - I would watch out for similar incidents to see if there was a pattern)
There are some weird people about. As any canvasser knows.
One of my favourites was during my first successful local election. The big heraldic shields attached to the front gate should have been a warning, but anyhow the guy invited me straight in (another warning) and said there was something I could help him with (third warning). He was having trouble with the council because he had registered his house as a monastery with himself as the only monk, and was trying to persuade the council that as a religious institution his house was exempt from council tax. The council was having none of it and I had to wade through all the lengthy correspondence. Once we’d finished that I thought I could make an escape but then he produced another voluminous file full of 1970s press cuttings that apparently proved that his brother had been killed by the secret service who had made it look like a car accident.
That was one house that never got another canvass.
Great story! I had a chap who believed that MI5 had bugged his housekey, so they always knew when he was out - he detected subtle changes to his things when he came back - in particular his stamp collection had been moved several inches... (I said that was worrying but hard to take action on a single report - I would watch out for similar incidents to see if there was a pattern)
I had someone who sincerely thought Margaret Thatcher was Labour.
Has @bbclaurak broken the law by telling 2 million viewers the postal votes are grim for Labour in huge swathes of the country?
Yes because the votes should not have been seen.
Mind you does it get Labour votes out tomorrow and / or keep Tory "voters" from voting
Pretty sure party officials watch the opening and counting of postal votes.
If they do they should be stopped. I think postal voting should be stopped except in extreme or exceptional cases.
Couldn'y it be argued that postal voting a kind of infringement of the principle of a secret ballot?
That is why the law is that papers must be kept face down. The purpose of the verification is to confirm that the identity and signatures of the postal voter tally up with their application, and that the paper returned is the one that was sent, and clearly if you catch a glimpse of the ballot paper then that person’s vote isn’t secret. Any responsible ERO (and most are very responsible) should do what he or she can to make sure papers are kept face down. So as a scrutineer your only chance is to catch a glimpse of a paper as it is being taken out of the envelope. Most people fold their papers over with the printed side inside, but occasionally someone folds it the other way so you might see the odd one, if you get a council staff member who is a little clumsy or slow. But they are supposed to stop the scrutineers seeing the face of the ballot papers, and most do.
Am sure that Antifrank was one of several posters (some of whom are still here) who remember Kerry McCarthy tweeting postal vote totals in 2010. She was very lucky to get off with a caution.
Davidson did it at Scottish referendum as well
I remember the 2010 kerfuffle very well. The BBC posted McCarthy's comments including the numbers and then they got posted on here. Then there was a hectic half an hour while everyone (including the BBC) started deleting any reference to them whatsoever.
The figures Kerry McCarthy published suggest that her sample (319 votes) was about 3% of the postal votes received in Bristol East in 2010 - and she said it was a sample only of the "First PVs opened", so they must have been looking at a minimum of 1 in 30. If "first" means "the first fifth" (just taking that figure out of a hat), then they would have been looking at 1 in 6.
Comments
We are not going to see 1% and -2% tonight surely and ironically leaves 9% if excluded
https://www.eastbourneherald.co.uk/news/politics/stephen-lloyd-apologises-over-video-of-him-swearing-at-constituent-1-9171222
It could still end up a landslide or hung parliament .
The one episode where you feel sorry for the candidates, since you know that the real competition is between the interviewers to see who can be the most aggressive/outrageous in order to get their clip into the show.
Does that seem very high?
People have pent up frustration about politics or particular policies and when the canvasser arrives out of the blue they can get years’ worth of anger focused on them. A guy tried to hit me once and when I stepped backwards proceeded to shove me off his driveway. Technically it’s an assault but in a middle of an election what candidate wants to set the police on one of their own electors, knowing it will turn into a “my word, his word” scenario?
I am not sure the average at this time in 2017
The reason being we’re not seeing the odd poll showing a much narrower gap , so for a hung parliament you’d need all the pollsters so far who’ve reported to be wrong .
We still have a few polls to go tonight so unless one of those turns up a shock I think then it’s looking good for the Tories .
Now that's a proper Chrimbo jumper!
So the body responsible for enforcing the law do not know either !
"People just don't like Corbyn. Not for any particular reason. They just don't like him".
That's because Corbyn is a c*nt. You don't need a reason. He IS the reason. The "people" are right, intuiitively.