FlyTheNest

rebeccariots2 wrote:

Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · 1h 1 hour ago
I'm expecting at least 3 further polls today

There you go whoever it was who was experiencing poll withdrawal - there's plenty on the way.

William Hague
Harriet Harman
John Swinney
Paul Nuttall
Natalie Bennett

This is a statutory offence. The words mean what they mean. There is no mens rea requirement. It is an offence of strict liability (there are lots of them).

If you induce someone directly or indiretly to display their ballot paper after it is marked you commit the offence. It doesn't matter at all what your intention was. Nor is there any 'reasonableness' limitation.

pk1 wrote:

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:Apparently the SNP are talking about forcing a vote for the recognition of the Palestinian state when the new Parliament convenes; so another Labour policy they are adopting then.

Christ, talk about bigging up their ego's !

There was a backbench debate & vote on recognising Palestine on 13th October 2014. It was introduced in Jack Straw's name & moved by Grahame Morris. All but 12 voted in favour !!

http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.p ... &number=54" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:This is plain odd

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:This is plain odd

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:This is plain odd

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

mbc1955 wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:This is plain odd

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Too damned subtle for me.

Michael Deacon ‏@MichaelPDeacon 42m42 minutes ago
BREAKING: Nigel Farage "doesn't like Fosters". Odd. I thought he wanted an Australian-style pints system

The Conservatives are strategising regional media out of the grid – and it won’t help their cause
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehous ... eir-cause/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It is the regional media, however, that feels the iron grip of the parties’ media machines the most. We work where voters actually live. So how we are treated during political visits can be revealing. And Labour, most regional reporters seem to agree, seem to have chilled out.

Ed Miliband and other senior Labour figures are freely giving up their time. We do get asked what sort of thing we might ask, but often only just beforehand – and if we lob in a curveball it is calmly batted back, without a frantic press officer shouting us down. They’ll even do it while being filmed.

Of all the leaders so far, Miliband has come closest to meeting real people in a real setting here: earlier this week he did a long question and answer session with students at Manchester Metropolitan University, with only a handful of Labour room-meat packed in alongside. Clearly he was on pretty safe ground with northern health students. So it says a lot about this campaign that such a small risk stands out as a beacon of democratic interaction.

refitman wrote:

RobertSnozers wrote:Slightly bizarre sensation earlier hearing Expenses Cheat David Laws crowing about the transparency of the LibDems' figures, considering his track record with transparency of figures.

FIFY

mikems wrote:
Of course there is a mens rea requirement.

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:This is plain odd

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

SpinningHugo wrote:

mikems wrote:
Of course there is a mens rea requirement.

I don't mean to be rude, but this is stuff I know about. No there isn't.

Wikipedia will do on whether there is always a mens rea requirement:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_lia ... riminal%29" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The offence is defined by the words of the section, which I copied above. Intention or reasonableness are not defining elements.

If you induce someone directly or indirectly blah blah blah, the offence is committed.

The Electoral Commission are quite right that merely tweeting your ballot paper marked up is not an offence. If by so doing you induce someone else to do the same, you do.

Why?

That is what the section says.

Michael Savage ‏@michaelsavage 1m1 minute ago
Lord Mandelson swings behind Miliband. He tells Channel 4 News: "He has way exceeded my expectations and actually I’m proud of him." #GE2015

tinyclanger2 wrote:"Ed Miliband has hair" shocker.

ohsocynical wrote:Duncan Weldon ‏@DuncanWeldon 7 hrs7 hours ago

Real terms cut in unprotected departments 2010-20 according to the IFS:

Con -27.6%, Lab -13.0%, LD -18.3%, SNP -22.2%.

rebeccariots2 wrote:

Michael Savage ‏@michaelsavage 1m1 minute ago
Lord Mandelson swings behind Miliband. He tells Channel 4 News: "He has way exceeded my expectations and actually I’m proud of him." #GE2015

Felt a sort of growl starting at the back of my throat when I saw this ... but have to set aside my reservations (and they are big) about Mandy and welcome the praise for Ed.

Contrast this with the Tory 'grandees' making disparaging remarks about Cameron's campaign.

SpinningHugo wrote:

mikems wrote:
Of course there is a mens rea requirement.

I don't mean to be rude, but this is stuff I know about. No there isn't.

Wikipedia will do on whether there is always a mens rea requirement:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_lia ... riminal%29" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The offence is defined by the words of the section, which I copied above. Intention or reasonableness are not defining elements.

If you induce someone directly or indirectly blah blah blah, the offence is committed.

The Electoral Commission are quite right that merely tweeting your ballot paper marked up is not an offence. If by so doing you induce someone else to do the same, you do.

Why?

That is what the section says.

RogerOThornhill wrote:

ohsocynical wrote:Duncan Weldon ‏@DuncanWeldon 7 hrs7 hours ago

Real terms cut in unprotected departments 2010-20 according to the IFS:

Con -27.6%, Lab -13.0%, LD -18.3%, SNP -22.2%.

So much for Sturgeon lecturing Miliband about austerity!

BRITAIN’s leading economic thinktank has seriously undermined the SNP’s central election pitch that it will bring “an end to austerity” by warning that Nicola Sturgeon’s proposal to increase spending by £180 billion will mean “a longer period of austerity” for the UK.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) also warned that SNP plans will mean less public spending in 2019/20 than planned by Labour in an analysis of all the main parties’ economic plans which was critical of the messages being given to voters.

...The SNP have dismissed the report, claiming the thinktank has got its figures wrong and “made flawed assumptions.”

Britain Elects ‏@britainelects 7m7 minutes ago
We've just seen Survation publish their new poll for the Daily Mirror then quickly delete it...Strange.

PorFavor wrote:David Cameron is currently engaged in embarrassing us all (and probably himself) in Brussels where he attending talks on the migrant boat situation. I have no empirical evidence but I'm going on past form.

Survation. ‏@Survation 1m1 minute ago
NEW: Survation/@DailyMirror (chg vs 17/04) CON 33% (-1); LAB 29% (-4); UKIP 18% (+1); LD 10% (+3); SNP 4% (NC); GRE 4% (+1); AP 1% (-1)

ohsocynical wrote:Luke Pollard ‏@LukePollard 22 mins22 minutes ago

Huge news from Labour for #plymouth about to break...

RobertSnozers wrote:

rebeccariots2 wrote:

Michael Savage ‏@michaelsavage 1m1 minute ago
Lord Mandelson swings behind Miliband. He tells Channel 4 News: "He has way exceeded my expectations and actually I’m proud of him." #GE2015

Felt a sort of growl starting at the back of my throat when I saw this ... but have to set aside my reservations (and they are big) about Mandy and welcome the praise for Ed.

Contrast this with the Tory 'grandees' making disparaging remarks about Cameron's campaign.

I think I'd be less gracious than that and tell Mandy he can take his praise, strap it to the nosecone of a Trident missile and fire the assembly up his bony arse.

rearofthestore wrote:Here it is. Smacks of complete rubbish to me

Survation. ‏@Survation 1m1 minute ago
NEW: Survation/@DailyMirror (chg vs 17/04) CON 33% (-1); LAB 29% (-4); UKIP 18% (+1); LD 10% (+3); SNP 4% (NC); GRE 4% (+1); AP 1% (-1)

frightful_oik wrote:

rearofthestore wrote:Here it is. Smacks of complete rubbish to me

Survation. ‏@Survation 1m1 minute ago
NEW: Survation/@DailyMirror (chg vs 17/04) CON 33% (-1); LAB 29% (-4); UKIP 18% (+1); LD 10% (+3); SNP 4% (NC); GRE 4% (+1); AP 1% (-1)

Lab & Tories neck and neck ... in the north!

23 Apr 2015
Table 1
Q1. Normal weightings
Q1. The next Westminster general election is now about 5 weeks away. On a scale of 0-10, where 10 is very certain, how certain are you to vote in the general election?

PorFavor wrote:Over at the Guardian Election Blog (17.31) is Labour's response to what is being called (by the Guardian) "Lectern-gate".

It's pretty good.

RobertSnozers wrote:

PorFavor wrote:Over at the Guardian Election Blog (17.31) is Labour's response to what is being called (by the Guardian) "Lectern-gate".

It's pretty good.

Any chance of more details for us boycotters?

RobertSnozers wrote:

PorFavor wrote:Over at the Guardian Election Blog (17.31) is Labour's response to what is being called (by the Guardian) "Lectern-gate".

It's pretty good.

Any chance of more details for us boycotters?

Labour Press TeamVerified account
‏@labourpress

.@CCHQPress No wonder David Cameron is scared of lecterns - he won't defend his record.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CDSh3OcWIAA7r2w.png" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

All political parties are prone to a degree of in-fighting but this seems to have been
carried to considerable lengths in the Labour Party from (at least) the mid-1990s to the
present. One of the more surprising aspects of the case has been the willingness of
members of the Labour Party, including members of its National Executive Committee
(‘NEC’), to campaign against the Party and in favour of rival candidates. This has been
combined with the willingness, even eagerness, of people who are still members of the
Labour Party to attempt to destroy the reputation of the Party’s official Mayoral
candidate, Mr Biggs, who is currently an official Labour Party member of the London
Assembly.

rebeccariots2 wrote:I'm reading the judge's ruling in the Lutfur Rahman election case - very interesting - it may take me days. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/judgment.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm just starting to get immersed in his summary of the history of the politics of Tower Hamlets ... from about page 61. He doesn't mince his words.

All political parties are prone to a degree of in-fighting but this seems to have been
carried to considerable lengths in the Labour Party from (at least) the mid-1990s to the
present. One of the more surprising aspects of the case has been the willingness of
members of the Labour Party, including members of its National Executive Committee
(‘NEC’), to campaign against the Party and in favour of rival candidates. This has been
combined with the willingness, even eagerness, of people who are still members of the
Labour Party to attempt to destroy the reputation of the Party’s official Mayoral
candidate, Mr Biggs, who is currently an official Labour Party member of the London
Assembly.

rearofthestore wrote:So Survation poll tonight suggests that the Labour vote overall is down by nearly 1% since last election.
More garbage.

Politico Daily ‏@Politico_Daily 47 mins47 minutes ago

Brown "We had a Scottish PM and what did the SNP say to people in England, vote for the Liberal Democrats"

diGriz wrote:

rearofthestore wrote:So Survation poll tonight suggests that the Labour vote overall is down by nearly 1% since last election.
More garbage.

I stopped following the polls ages ago, they don't tally with general events which leads me to think they are heavily manipulated. Extremely possible with the right money and contacts. With hindsight it will be interesting when the only poll that matters has taken place. We can go back and see what is really going on.