Thursday 23rd April 2015

frightful_oik · Post by **frightful_oik** » Thu 23 Apr, 2015 4:04 pm

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.

'Twas I. Yougov, Survation and... summat else.

frightful_oik · Post by **frightful_oik** » Thu 23 Apr, 2015 4:08 pm

QT tonight:

William Hague
Harriet Harman
John Swinney
Paul Nuttall
Natalie Bennett

I thought they would have some RW Think Tank loon on there as well. Ho hum.

diGriz · Post by **diGriz** » Thu 23 Apr, 2015 4:17 pm

Professor Stephen Hawking gives his backing Labour

http://labourlist.org/2015/04/professor ... ng-labour/

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Thu 23 Apr, 2015 4:19 pm

Lord Ashcroft ‏@LordAshcroft 2 hrs2 hours ago
YouGov forecast of seats at GE
CON 270
LAB 277
LDEM 27
UKIP 3
SNP 50

mikems · Post by **mikems** » Thu 23 Apr, 2015 4:29 pm

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).

Of course there is a mens rea requirement. Therein lies the difference between crime and mistake. And that is if we must accept your assertion that 'this is an offense', which is not what the Electoral Commission says, but let's ignore that, why not, and let's pass to sentence!

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.

Once again you assume that this inducement has been proven. I am saying there is no inducement because there was no intention to induce anyone else to 'display their ballot paper' in the polling station. And a court would find the same, not paying any more attention to bluster than it should to the vexatious nonsense from an extremist.

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Thu 23 Apr, 2015 4:39 pm

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;

Pretty much the point I made Over There.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Thu 23 Apr, 2015 4:54 pm

This is plain odd

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

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Thu 23 Apr, 2015 4:57 pm

The rift between Lynton Crosby and Grant Shapps has been aggravated by accusations that Contribsx made changes to Lynton's Wikipedia page. Following David's wish for happy patients during Newsbeat's Ask the Leaders broadcast for Radio 1, Grant has made amends by volunteering that beer and bingo be introduced into doctors' surgery waiting rooms to boost their electoral campaign.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Thu 23 Apr, 2015 5:06 pm

Samuel Miller ‏@Hephaestus7 35 mins35 minutes ago

On March 30th, I tweeted that Deloitte has been appointed to sell A4E, the scandal-struck work training business

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 23 Apr, 2015 5:09 pm

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:This is plain odd

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

Tories are upset they can't trust Dave on one. This image was Ed Miliband earlier today. The number of people listening to him make Tories jealous.

http://i.guim.co.uk/media/w-620/h--/q-9 ... 1/1000.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

mbc1955 · Post by **mbc1955** » Thu 23 Apr, 2015 5:10 pm

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:This is plain odd

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

Too damned subtle for me.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Thu 23 Apr, 2015 5:11 pm

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:This is plain odd

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

Quite weird what CCHQ are putting out. Amateurish and desperate. They can't seem to stop themselves though. With all the funds they've had at their disposal you'd have thought they could dobuy better.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Thu 23 Apr, 2015 5:12 pm

mbc1955 wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:This is plain odd

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Too damned subtle for me.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Thu 23 Apr, 2015 5:13 pm

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

Sorry, sorry.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Thu 23 Apr, 2015 5:22 pm

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;

Very interesting article - and more evidence of how poor the Conservative campaign is.

Glad to read this:

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.

In stark contrast to the description of the Conservatives' machinations that follows.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Thu 23 Apr, 2015 5:30 pm

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

the original of this reads (in the bit where refitman fixed something): "yellow is unreadable."

I like it.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Thu 23 Apr, 2015 5:39 pm

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.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 23 Apr, 2015 5:54 pm

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:This is plain odd

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

Yes, isn't it? I'm sure if Ed Miliband gets rid of the lectern they'll turn on him for using a microphone. Then for hiding behind his shirt - which, as we all know, is a well-documented act of a political coward.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Thu 23 Apr, 2015 5:56 pm

"Ed Miliband has hair" shocker.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Thu 23 Apr, 2015 6:03 pm

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%.

mbc1955 · Post by **mbc1955** » Thu 23 Apr, 2015 6:03 pm

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.

From your Wikipedia reference: "Wherever a section is silent as to mens rea there is a presumption that, in order to give effect to the will of Parliament, words importing mens rea must be read into the provision."

The section in question is silent as to mens rea.

As a former Solicitor - Civil not Criminal Law - I question your interpretation.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Thu 23 Apr, 2015 6:04 pm

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.

Rebecca · Post by **Rebecca** » Thu 23 Apr, 2015 6:10 pm

tinyclanger2 wrote:"Ed Miliband has hair" shocker.

And Cameron is losing his fast!

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Thu 23 Apr, 2015 6:11 pm

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!

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 23 Apr, 2015 6:12 pm

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.

Patronising git. (Peter Mandelson (a man who is now trying to curry favour, I suspect) - not you!)

Edited to add -

I bet he sees himself as a potential kingmaker\mover and shaker in a hung parliament situation and is desperately trying to oil his New Labour person into favour. Bloody has-been.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Thu 23 Apr, 2015 6:15 pm

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.

Yes, but how do you persuade (or "induce") someone to do something they have already done? Once someone has revealed their paper voluntarily (and I see nothing in the guidelines to suggest this is disallowed) the possibility of "inducing" them to do so no longer exists. These rules are to protect peoples' right to secrecy in the polling station. They clearly haven't been updated to cover camera phones and social media, which does leave some ambiguity, but the intention is clearly to protect a voter's right to privacy, not to curtail their ability to freely share with others what they choose. Again, how does retweeting a pic of someone's postal vote, induce that person to show their ballot paper - the paper has already been shown, persuasion can't come after the event it is supposed to persuade!

Eric_WLothian · Post by **Eric_WLothian** » Thu 23 Apr, 2015 6:40 pm

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!

Don't be silly. The SNP is always right.

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.”

http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/ifs-thi ... -1-3752691

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 23 Apr, 2015 6:40 pm

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

Edited to add "is"

rearofthestore · Post by **rearofthestore** » Thu 23 Apr, 2015 6:43 pm

I wonder what the story is around the disappearing poll

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

Spacedone · Post by **Spacedone** » Thu 23 Apr, 2015 6:45 pm

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.

My guess is he's volunteering to send one of those spare aircraft carriers to the region carrying a massive sign saying "GO HOME!"

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Thu 23 Apr, 2015 6:48 pm

Luke Pollard ‏@LukePollard 22 mins22 minutes ago

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

rearofthestore · Post by **rearofthestore** » Thu 23 Apr, 2015 6:48 pm

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)

Spacedone · Post by **Spacedone** » Thu 23 Apr, 2015 6:50 pm

ohsocynical wrote:Luke Pollard ‏@LukePollard 22 mins22 minutes ago

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

It's something about trains from Plymouth.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 23 Apr, 2015 6:56 pm

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.

Oh - did I miss that bit out? Careless of me!

frightful_oik · Post by **frightful_oik** » Thu 23 Apr, 2015 6:57 pm

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!

rearofthestore · Post by **rearofthestore** » Thu 23 Apr, 2015 6:59 pm

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!

The first question undermines the whole poll imo

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?

my bold

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 23 Apr, 2015 7:01 pm

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.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Thu 23 Apr, 2015 7:01 pm

Ian ‏@Mancman10 3 mins3 minutes ago
3 new polls today:

YouGov: LAB 35 CON 34 UKIP 13 LD 7 GR 5
PBase: LAB 34 CON 31 UKIP 17 LD 7 GR 4
Surv: CON 33 LAB 29 UKIP 18 LD 10 GR 4

diGriz · Post by **diGriz** » Thu 23 Apr, 2015 7:02 pm

Not sure if anyone mentioned it and I missed it but...

2 weeks to go!!

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Thu 23 Apr, 2015 7:06 pm

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.

Yeah, PorFavor, it minded me of Empty Dave.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 23 Apr, 2015 7:15 pm

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?

It's a photo'' of an empty suit standing at a lectern outside No 10. The picture is accompanied by the words "He won't defend his record. He's the Invisible Man"; and the words "Where's Dave?" in a small box.

Edited to replace speech mark (singular) for an apostrophe.

Post by **refitman** » Thu 23 Apr, 2015 7:16 pm

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;

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 23 Apr, 2015 7:19 pm

@ refitman

Thank you! Rather more effective than my reported effort.

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Thu 23 Apr, 2015 7:33 pm

Good evening

Latest lot of shit from Grauniad Land...no owning up from the author but my guess is his name begins with W.....unless the pathetic phantom of Glover has reappeared

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... ority-rule" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Thu 23 Apr, 2015 7:48 pm

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.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Thu 23 Apr, 2015 7:55 pm

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.

The document is highly editorialised in my opinion. I'm referring to a few pages before & after what you've quoted above.

rearofthestore · Post by **rearofthestore** » Thu 23 Apr, 2015 8:08 pm

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

diGriz · Post by **diGriz** » Thu 23 Apr, 2015 8:20 pm

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.

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Thu 23 Apr, 2015 8:28 pm

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"

I think Browns telling a few home truths...

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Thu 23 Apr, 2015 8:37 pm

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.

Totally agree diGriz, I don't think they are worth the pixels they're written in.