FlyTheNest

Morning!

I thought this was interesting (a few weeks old) in light of the "rumours" Willow referred us to yesterday.

https://labourlist.org/2018/03/what-doe ... -strategy/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

what-does-the-cambridge-analytica-scandal-mean-for-labours-digital-campaign-strategy

Morning.

Morning.

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Morning!

I thought this was interesting (a few weeks old) in light of the "rumours" Willow referred us to yesterday.

https://labourlist.org/2018/03/what-doe ... -strategy/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

what-does-the-cambridge-analytica-scandal-mean-for-labours-digital-campaign-strategy

Interesting, thanks. Facebook created a unique opportunity to access a certain generation of voters but Labour is right to not rely on it. Regulation changes and cultural changes (younger people don't tend to use it) means it may not be so fruitful in future.

It's particularly interesting that the article references political ads aimed at specific groups of people (micro-targeting) as this is an area that has caused concern because of the inability of the Electoral Commission to check if they comply with the rules:

http://www.thedrum.com/news/2018/04/20/ ... d-facebook" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

IPA president Sarah Golding, also chief executive at CHI&Partners, said: “Politics relies on the public square – on open, collective debate. We, however, believe micro-targeted political ads circumvent this. Very small numbers of voters can be targeted with specific messages that exist online only briefly. In the absence of regulation, we believe this almost hidden form of political communication is vulnerable to abuse."

mbc1955 wrote:Morning.

Morning!

This is a good Saturday read. A timely interview with the original "dub poet" Linton Kwesi Johnson.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/ ... nt-allowed" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

linton-kwesi-johnson-brixton-windrush-myth-immigrants-didnt-want-fit-british-society-we-werent-allowed

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/ ... ity-wealth" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Families also face a social care lottery that could wipe out an inheritance if a parent or grandparent cannot look after themselves.


FFS interdependency a concept too far seemingly.We all,regardless rely on each other.Tories have just introduced a bespoke targeted death tax for those daring not to be institutionalised/move from adapted homes to non existent more suitable they can't move to anyway.


An option of clarification,that or £30p.w or so reduction in income for saving the State countless amounts after decades of contributions.Unintended of course,bollox.

They don't even know the numbers,just" insignificant in their eyes,being "unfair" is enough to penalise.The fuckwittery of removing of in effect cost saving investment,making vulnerable,enacting debt thus more reliance on the State is astounding.Circumstances don't comply to Government diktat,temporary is accordingly differing,well paid back,suitably adapted for others and potential,zero future housing costs for the State.Only a twunthead and/or misanthropic financial illiterate would support.

Labour 'weaponising Windrush to distract from antisemitism row'

Michael Gove defends Amber Rudd over internal Home Office memo about removal targets
(Guardian)

So he doesn't regard the two issues as being of at least matters of equal seriousness, then?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... mitism-row

Three high street banks upgrade websites,only then finding out inaccessible to the blind,arse about facery seems to be the default generally.

Constance doing weight training.

Morning all.

I don't understand Gove's point - how can you 'weaponise' something which is the result of political decisions by his own Government?

'Weaponising' something is taking an issue that isn't political and making it so.

PorFavor wrote:

Labour 'weaponising Windrush to distract from antisemitism row'

Michael Gove defends Amber Rudd over internal Home Office memo about removal targets
(Guardian)

So he doesn't regard the two issues as being of at least matters of equal seriousness, then?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... mitism-row

So the petition signed by over 100,000 members of the general public to get the Windrush issue debated in Parliament (scheduled for Monday) is part of some mendacious plan by the opposition to represent the general public in holding the government to account? Michael Gove, much as Cameron so often did, is attempting to deny the public's right to be represented because those representing them may have done something once that some members of the public may object to. If we are to follow this rule to its natural conclusion, no opposition party would be able to represent the people in holding the government to account on anything ever, something Michael Gove may indeed like, but the rest of us may consider to be somewhat authoritarian bordering on dictatorship. In reality Michael Gove is just an unprincipled sleazebag who is exposing the government's discomfort on this issue with his ridiculously desperate nonsense.

I think Rudd had to stay to take the heat from Monday's debate. Whether it will draw a line under this for her it's hard to tell. From the perspective of those struggling to prove their citizenship rights, it's also difficult to tell what would be the best outcome. Will Rudd's humiliation lead to her pursuing a real change in approach? Or would a new Home Secretary better serve their interests? I'm not sure.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... ssion=true" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... tism-in-uk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


More than 120 homeopaths trying to ‘cure’ autism in UK

RogerOThornhill wrote:Morning all.

I don't understand Gove's point - how can you 'weaponise' something which is the result of political decisions by his own Government?

'Weaponising' something is taking an issue that isn't political and making it so.

Anything that Labour use against the Tories is weaponising. The NHS, immigration, Brexit, the disabled, etc, etc.

refitman wrote:

RogerOThornhill wrote:Morning all.

I don't understand Gove's point - how can you 'weaponise' something which is the result of political decisions by his own Government?

'Weaponising' something is taking an issue that isn't political and making it so.

Anything that Labour use against the Tories is weaponising. The NHS, immigration, Brexit, the disabled, etc, etc.

"Weaponising" or "politicising".

https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/a ... -campaign/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Activist celebrates after Welsh Labour backs independent living campaign

https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/maga ... ed-ghettos" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We need social housing, not gentrified ghettos

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/just ... role-board" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Press release

Justice Secretary announces ambitious first steps in overhaul of Parole Board


https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... -decisions" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I notice the Electoral reform Society have warned against having to show ID at polling stations.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... ply-flawed

Plans requiring voters to prove their identity before casting their ballot are "deeply flawed", the Electoral Reform Society (ERS) has warned.

The group said it appeared the plans were a "calculated effort by the Government to make voting harder for some citizens".

Pilot schemes will be in place at five councils in the local elections in England on May 3: Bromley, Gosport, Swindon, Watford and Woking.

The ERS said personification fraud - where someone votes while pretending to be someone else - is "incredibly rare" and the introduction of mandatory voter ID "poses more problems than solutions".

ERS chief executive Darren Hughes said: "It's hard not to see this as a calculated effort by the government...

PorFavor wrote:

Labour 'weaponising Windrush to distract from antisemitism row'

Michael Gove defends Amber Rudd over internal Home Office memo about removal targets
(Guardian)

So he doesn't regard the two issues as being of at least matters of equal seriousness, then?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... mitism-row

He argues like a spiteful brat caught breaking the law for the ten-thousandth time

"Michael Gove: ‘There does seem to be a series of leaks, or sharing with the Guardian in particular, that is designed to serve a particular agenda."

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... mitism-row" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Reporting the news

RogerOThornhill wrote:I notice the Electoral reform Society have warned against having to show ID at polling stations.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... ply-flawed

Plans requiring voters to prove their identity before casting their ballot are "deeply flawed", the Electoral Reform Society (ERS) has warned.

The group said it appeared the plans were a "calculated effort by the Government to make voting harder for some citizens".

Pilot schemes will be in place at five councils in the local elections in England on May 3: Bromley, Gosport, Swindon, Watford and Woking.

The ERS said personification fraud - where someone votes while pretending to be someone else - is "incredibly rare" and the introduction of mandatory voter ID "poses more problems than solutions".

ERS chief executive Darren Hughes said: "It's hard not to see this as a calculated effort by the government...

How difficult would it be for you or any other reader here to impersonate another voter ?

If it is easy, what are the odds of being caught ?

PorFavor wrote:

refitman wrote:

RogerOThornhill wrote:Morning all.

I don't understand Gove's point - how can you 'weaponise' something which is the result of political decisions by his own Government?

'Weaponising' something is taking an issue that isn't political and making it so.

Anything that Labour use against the Tories is weaponising. The NHS, immigration, Brexit, the disabled, etc, etc.

"Weaponising" or "politicising".

Which shows that seeing themselves as somehow "above politics" is actually a very common Tory mindset.

Yes - they regard themselves as a sort of monarchy. Born to rule.

https://www.inquest.org.uk/danny-tozer-conclusion" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Inquest concludes into death of Danny Tozer in Mencap" supported" living


"Learning disabled people should not die on average twenty years before their non-disabled peers, their deaths frequently un-investigated. We were shocked that we had to fight for two years to get an inquest into the unexpected death of a physically healthy and active 36 year old. "

" He died in the care of Mencap, a charity which describes itself as the ‘leading voice’ for those with learning disabilities. It is astonishing therefore that Mencap both failed to carry out an investigation into Danny’s death and were not prepared to support Danny’s parents’ requests for as full and thorough an inquiry as possible."

Pilot schemes will be in place at five councils in the local elections in England on May 3: Bromley, Gosport, Swindon, Watford and Woking.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... ply-flawed" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Piloting schemes this close to an election

PorFavor wrote:Yes - they regard themselves as a sort of monarchy. Born to rule.

Agreed
Tory leadership believing they're 'born to rule' is repugnant to me
I was unprepared by the strength of my feelings

frog222 wrote:

RogerOThornhill wrote:I notice the Electoral reform Society have warned against having to show ID at polling stations.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... ply-flawed

Plans requiring voters to prove their identity before casting their ballot are "deeply flawed", the Electoral Reform Society (ERS) has warned.

The group said it appeared the plans were a "calculated effort by the Government to make voting harder for some citizens".

Pilot schemes will be in place at five councils in the local elections in England on May 3: Bromley, Gosport, Swindon, Watford and Woking.

The ERS said personification fraud - where someone votes while pretending to be someone else - is "incredibly rare" and the introduction of mandatory voter ID "poses more problems than solutions".

ERS chief executive Darren Hughes said: "It's hard not to see this as a calculated effort by the government...

How difficult would it be for you or any other reader here to impersonate another voter ?

If it is easy, what are the odds of being caught ?

Polling stations are placed locally, the size of each small
Even if I were bad enough to try voting posing as someone I'm not, I'd consider the risk and penalties too high to risk it

frog222 wrote:

RogerOThornhill wrote:I notice the Electoral reform Society have warned against having to show ID at polling stations.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... ply-flawed

Plans requiring voters to prove their identity before casting their ballot are "deeply flawed", the Electoral Reform Society (ERS) has warned.

The group said it appeared the plans were a "calculated effort by the Government to make voting harder for some citizens".

Pilot schemes will be in place at five councils in the local elections in England on May 3: Bromley, Gosport, Swindon, Watford and Woking.

The ERS said personification fraud - where someone votes while pretending to be someone else - is "incredibly rare" and the introduction of mandatory voter ID "poses more problems than solutions".

ERS chief executive Darren Hughes said: "It's hard not to see this as a calculated effort by the government...

How difficult would it be for you or any other reader here to impersonate another voter ?

If it is easy, what are the odds of being caught ?

Why would someone try to use someone else's vote when they have a vote of their own? Voter fraud only makes sense if you can achieve meaningful volumes and having individuals impersonate other individuals has a high risk of getting caught out without achieving very high volumes. This is why there is rightly more concern over the fraud risks in postal voting, which voter ID doesn't address. There was also some concern that students were boasting of voting twice in the last election via being dual registered. I'm not sure there's any real evidence of that, but again, voter ID doesn't address it anyway. It's not surprising there's a lot of suspicion around a solution to electoral fraud which doesn't actually address any of the types of electoral fraud there have previously been concerns about.

Just reading the article about the people behind the attempts to get Alfie Evans flown to Italy...and this is...interesting to say the least.

'Call from God': American pro-lifer's role in Alfie Evans battle

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... ans-battle

In court, Pavel Stroilov, the Christian Legal Centre law student representing Alfie’s parents, came in for the most searing criticism this week. He was described by Hayden as a “fanatical and deluded young man” whose submissions to the court were “littered with vituperation and bile” that was “inconsistent with the real interests of the parents’ case”.

A Russian exile who has worked as a researcher for the current Ukip leader, Gerard Batten, since 2011, Stroilov was behind the attempt by Alfie’s parents to pursue a private prosecution for murder against three Alder Hey doctors.

It is understood that Alder Hey’s legal team is considering pursuing a contempt of court case against Stroilov unless he provides details of his legal qualifications. “There are grave concerns about the wholly misleading advice that was provided by Mr Stroilov,” said a source close to Alder Hey’s legal team. Stroilov did not respond to a request for comment.

Experts eh - who needs 'em...

Willow904 wrote: There was also some concern that students were boasting of voting twice in the last election via being dual registered. I'm not sure there's any real evidence of that, but again, voter ID doesn't address it anyway.

The more excitable people out there were getting really worked up over a Labour stall telling students that they could vote twice in local elections...and didn't seem to take any notice when it was pointed out that this is entirely legal. But it's only that way in local elections - not in general elections. I guess because most students have two addresses and therefore are affected by local decisions in both home and university areas.

Willow -- " Why would someone try to use someone else's vote when they have a vote of their own? Voter fraud only makes sense if you can achieve meaningful volumes and having individuals impersonate other individuals has a high risk of getting caught out without achieving very high volumes."

Agreed on the postal voting possibilities .

I just wanted to know how possible it would be, which CjA answered they'd never do it !

A hypothetical question . If it's easy to do , why stop at just voting twice ?

frog222 wrote:Willow -- " Why would someone try to use someone else's vote when they have a vote of their own? Voter fraud only makes sense if you can achieve meaningful volumes and having individuals impersonate other individuals has a high risk of getting caught out without achieving very high volumes."

Agreed on the postal voting possibilities .

I just wanted to know how possible it would be, which CjA answered they'd never do it !

A hypothetical question . If it's easy to do , why stop at just voting twice ?

If it's easy to do....exactly. I just don't know how you could know for sure the real voter hadn't already voted. The chance of being caught trying to cast a vote in the name of someone who has already voted, to be challenged and possibly someone overhear and say "that's not Mr Brown" - it's bonkers risky, and for what gain, exactly? The chances of placing enough votes this way to make an actual difference without getting caught seem slim, to me.

Oh and I've found another potential glitch voter ID wouldn't fix:

http://metro.co.uk/2016/05/05/voters-se ... e-5862530/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Voters sent multiple polling cards ‘could vote twice’

I mean, there's no reason to think anyone would vote twice even if a registration mix up gave them the opportunity, but yet again, voter ID doesn't solve this problem as each time they can prove they are the person with that name and address!

RogerOThornhill wrote:

Willow904 wrote: There was also some concern that students were boasting of voting twice in the last election via being dual registered. I'm not sure there's any real evidence of that, but again, voter ID doesn't address it anyway.

The more excitable people out there were getting really worked up over a Labour stall telling students that they could vote twice in local elections...and didn't seem to take any notice when it was pointed out that this is entirely legal. But it's only that way in local elections - not in general elections. I guess because most students have two addresses and therefore are affected by local decisions in both home and university areas.

Dual registration enables people who live in two places for a large part of the year to take part in elections in either place. Although anyone can dual register, few people qualify other than students. As you say it's a specific offence to vote twice in a general election but it's not an offence to vote twice in local elections - ie one person voting in two different places on the same day - as there is no specific rule against it. What I'm not sure about is whether it's an intended right or a loophole. Before people could request a postal vote for any reason, as introduced in the early 2000s, I'm not sure whether it would have been possible to vote in both places at the same time in the way it is now. Are Labour encouraging students to make use of an intended right or are they encouraging students to exploit an electoral loophole? I suspect it depends on whether you think it acceptable for someone to be voting in two places simultaneously. Personally I always thought dual registration was to ensure people weren't disenfranchised if a GE was held when they were away from their main address at a time when postal votes were harder to acquire and the ability to vote in two local elections just a natural by product of being registered in both places rather than the intended aim. I'd love to see something official that would confirm whether it's a loophole or policy as it's definitely caused a lot of confusion. Hopefully not so much confusion that students are misled into thinking they can vote twice in GEs as well. It's clear those opposed to Labour encouraging this think that's what's happening, but I'm not aware there is any evidence to back that up. Students are likely bright enough to understand the difference!

#De Cordova

Last month, I asked what the Government is doing to ensure that blind & partially sighted people will be able to vote independently & in secret in the May elections, following an @RNIB report showing just ¼ were able to at the 2017 General Election

This morning, I met with the Minister to discuss this–but I was disappointed to hear action hasn't been taken to rectify the situation.



And of course the do it in the car park (un) reasonable adjustment.

Imaginary fraud versus reality.

Surprised at few,times may have changed,work with live in accommodation was quite common at least,we were dual registered for some years.

Sainsbury's and Asda in shock talks over £10bn merger deal

New supermarket giant would have 31% market share, compared with Tesco’s 27.6%

Sainsbury’s, which swallowed Argos in 2016, is thought to be in the driving seat for the deal. Asda, which is owned by the world’s largest retailer, Walmart, has been struggling in recent years as the fast-growing German discounters Aldi and Lidl have stolen its customers.(Guardian)

I wonder how "Brexit" will affect Aldi and Lidl? I haven't noticed any coverage of their commenting on it.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... erger-deal

"Free the stolen customers"

HindleA wrote:Surprised at few,times may have changed,work with live in accommodation was quite common at least,we were dual registered for some years.

I just meant students are the only large identifiable group that fall into the category. Owning a holiday cottage in Cornwall doesn't count eg. Did you ever vote in local elections in two locations on the same day, btw? I'm quite curious as to whether this is something people habitually did as a matter of course before Labour starting encouraging students to do it.

[youtube]w9gOQgfPW4Y[/youtube]

I thought you'd like it!

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... referendum" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
With less than a year remaining, the opponents of Brexit are mobilising. Could a second referendum be forced by people who won’t take go for an answer?

In a Lima bar one night, Malloch-Brown’s fellow consultant Rob Shepardson flipped over a beer mat and drew two intersecting axes that, he said, summed up all political campaigns. In Malloch-Brown’s version, the vertical axis runs from “change” to “status quo” and the horizontal from “distrusted elites” to “people like me”.

“Where was the Brexit campaign? Up here.” He marks a cross in the top right corner. “And where was the remain campaign? Down here.” Another cross, bottom left. “How do we reverse that position? How do we make remain – the very word is a status quo word – the change cause, and find spokespeople to deliver that message? Our whole campaign is about how to get to here.”

I will believe it when I see it, in more senses than one.

@tinyclanger2

Finished! (Was that the longer read?)

I quite like the back of the beer mat explanation

PorFavor wrote:@tinyclanger2

Finished! (Was that the longer read?)

Many of the comments I've read so far are good

AnatolyKasparov wrote:I will believe it when I see it, in more senses than one.

It seems extremely unlikely that Parliament will reject any withdrawal agreement that Theresa May manages to negotiate, unless they can first get it into law that rejection means the govt going back to the EU & renegotiating. Even then, I think any withdrawal agreement will pass. I think no deal is a bigger threat to Brexit. We are in no position to leave without a transition period.

If we get a ruling from the ECJ before the Autumn that the UK can unilaterally revoke article 50, that might change the dynamics a bit. If this was public knowledge it makes it easier to call Theresa May's bluff and insist she get a better deal or call it off. The current official govt position that article 50 isn't unilaterally revocable currently allows May to dare the opposition to reject a deal at the peril of leaving without one.

Oh - PTO.