|
|
Post by finsobruce on Apr 24, 2021 17:00:16 GMT
The Royal Mail has had rules as to what is acceptable content for since I have been dealing with General Elections (first stood as candidate in 1983) and almost certainly before. Although prior to the point at which they allowed unaddressed leaflets or leaflets not in envelopes they were unable to check. (which I think is after 1983) Well, it is still disturbing, especially since it has been privatised. What stops them to censor leaflets that major shareholders don't like? i would think the problem would be the 'court of public opinion" rather than shareholders. |
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,312 
Member is Online
|
Post by maxque on Apr 24, 2021 17:47:18 GMT
Well, it is still disturbing, especially since it has been privatised. What stops them to censor leaflets that major shareholders don't like? i would think the problem would be the 'court of public opinion" rather than shareholders. Here, Canada Post still delivers graphic anti-abortion leaflets and the repugnant Epoch Times (far-right Falun Gong newspaper/litter) despite widespread compalints by both receivers and mail carriers, saying they are not allowed to censor mail unless mandated by court order. |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Apr 24, 2021 17:49:03 GMT
As an outsider, but one who has observed Liberal and then Lib Dem strategy over the years, the episode seems very strange. Normally this is a party of targeting and careful husbanding of resources. The arrival of the SDP had a short-term distraction effect - it brought in a lot of political innocents who really believed that any seat was winnable. But targeting soon returned. Agreed that there's a limit to what can be spent within the election period in individual constituencies but some of that can be worked around. I can only assume the following: 1. The Euro success produced genuine hubris - so widespread were the seeming gains. The core election message certainly suggested that. 2. The cash arrived too late for proper use before the election (and outside legal controls). 3. Donors may have had some conditions on the use of their largesse. 4. The party brought in a bunch of Euro-enthusiasts in the centre and let them get on with it. 5. Suddenly having a great deal of money to spend overwhelmed the limited systems of a party used to careful husbandry. As it was the main effect of the spend in non-target seats was probably to slightly boost the Tory majority by tipping a few Labour seats over. I think I would judge most of those five points to be accurate. |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Apr 24, 2021 17:51:30 GMT
As an outsider, but one who has observed Liberal and then Lib Dem strategy over the years, the episode seems very strange. Normally this is a party of targeting and careful husbanding of resources. The arrival of the SDP had a short-term distraction effect - it brought in a lot of political innocents who really believed that any seat was winnable. But targeting soon returned. Agreed that there's a limit to what can be spent within the election period in individual constituencies but some of that can be worked around. I can only assume the following: 1. The Euro success produced genuine hubris - so widespread were the seeming gains. The core election message certainly suggested that. 2. The cash arrived too late for proper use before the election (and outside legal controls). 3. Donors may have had some conditions on the use of their largesse. 4. The party brought in a bunch of Euro-enthusiasts in the centre and let them get on with it. 5. Suddenly having a great deal of money to spend overwhelmed the limited systems of a party used to careful husbandry. As it was the main effect of the spend in non-target seats was probably to slightly boost the Tory majority by tipping a few Labour seats over. The biggest issue was there was no plan B. When the media went out of their way to ignore/be actively hostile (and our entire campaign plan was clearly predicated by us having a fair hearing & being in all the debates) we ploughed the same furrow after our initial, very real, on the ground promise, evaporated when faced with an election that was portrayed as a complete binary choice between the big two (which ironically, as the campaign went on, it actually became less of a binary choice because Labour under Corbyn didn't stand a chance). Having said that, all the campaigning nous in the world would have struggled to come up with a message to combat the abject fear that Lib Dem/Tory switchers had about a prospect of a Corbyn led government (an offshoot of the obsession of the media to make the election, outside Scotland, a binary Red/Blue battle) that ultimately cost us several seats. But yes, overall, the money spent was mostly wasted and activists and members on the ground were hardly impressed. Again, spot on I would say. For various reasons I spent little time in target seats in 2017/19 but the general feeling I got was that the national "support" was viewed as actually counterproductive. |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Apr 24, 2021 17:54:38 GMT
That's extremely concerning. The Royal Mail isn't a censor. It's also concerning if it means Lib Dem HQ wasn't working with Royal Mail to ensure that freepost templates & drafts were compliant. Especially given the history of freeposts failures and Lib Dem causes you'd have thought someone would have prioritised this. You would have thought. We thought. And then had our leaflets delayed as it got sorted. |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Apr 24, 2021 17:57:11 GMT
i would think the problem would be the 'court of public opinion" rather than shareholders. Here, Canada Post still delivers graphic anti-abortion leaflets and the repugnant Epoch Times (far-right Falun Gong newspaper/litter) despite widespread compalints by both receivers and mail carriers, saying they are not allowed to censor mail unless mandated by court order. There may be a difference between paid-for delivery and freepost delivery. |
|
|
|
Post by owainsutton on Apr 24, 2021 17:57:24 GMT
As an outsider, but one who has observed Liberal and then Lib Dem strategy over the years, the episode seems very strange. Normally this is a party of targeting and careful husbanding of resources. The arrival of the SDP had a short-term distraction effect - it brought in a lot of political innocents who really believed that any seat was winnable. But targeting soon returned. Agreed that there's a limit to what can be spent within the election period in individual constituencies but some of that can be worked around. I can only assume the following: 1. The Euro success produced genuine hubris - so widespread were the seeming gains. The core election message certainly suggested that. 2. The cash arrived too late for proper use before the election (and outside legal controls). 3. Donors may have had some conditions on the use of their largesse. 4. The party brought in a bunch of Euro-enthusiasts in the centre and let them get on with it. 5. Suddenly having a great deal of money to spend overwhelmed the limited systems of a party used to careful husbandry. As it was the main effect of the spend in non-target seats was probably to slightly boost the Tory majority by tipping a few Labour seats over. Certainly 1 - grass-roots activists genuinely believed the national campaign messages. |
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Apr 24, 2021 18:00:26 GMT
As an outsider, but one who has observed Liberal and then Lib Dem strategy over the years, the episode seems very strange. Normally this is a party of targeting and careful husbanding of resources. The arrival of the SDP had a short-term distraction effect - it brought in a lot of political innocents who really believed that any seat was winnable. But targeting soon returned. Agreed that there's a limit to what can be spent within the election period in individual constituencies but some of that can be worked around. I can only assume the following: 1. The Euro success produced genuine hubris - so widespread were the seeming gains. The core election message certainly suggested that. 2. The cash arrived too late for proper use before the election (and outside legal controls). 3. Donors may have had some conditions on the use of their largesse. 4. The party brought in a bunch of Euro-enthusiasts in the centre and let them get on with it. 5. Suddenly having a great deal of money to spend overwhelmed the limited systems of a party used to careful husbandry. As it was the main effect of the spend in non-target seats was probably to slightly boost the Tory majority by tipping a few Labour seats over. Certainly 1 - grass-roots activists genuinely believed the national campaign messages. Some Lib Dems (not me) are fond of quoting the %age of the electorate when votes go against them. The Lib Dem vote in the Euros in 2019 was just 7% of the electorate - could nobody make the connection? |
|
|
|
Post by johnhemming on Apr 24, 2021 18:03:41 GMT
It was from a Lib Dem perspective probably the worst national campaigns since I was first a candidate. I could not continue as a candidate because of the harassment campaign against my family and myself, but it would have been awful to be on the receiving end of the national campaign. I think it lost Tom Brake his seat (what other effects I cannot say).
|
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Apr 24, 2021 20:59:54 GMT
Certainly 1 - grass-roots activists genuinely believed the national campaign messages. Some Lib Dems (not me) are fond of quoting the %age of the electorate when votes go against them. The Lib Dem vote in the Euros in 2019 was just 7% of the electorate - could nobody make the connection? Plenty of us did. But the party (by no means uniquely) seems to have been taken over by would-be SPADs rather than would-be Council Leaders. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Apr 24, 2021 21:00:12 GMT
It's also concerning if it means Lib Dem HQ wasn't working with Royal Mail to ensure that freepost templates & drafts were compliant. Especially given the history of freeposts failures and Lib Dem causes you'd have thought someone would have prioritised this. You would have thought. We thought. And then had our leaflets delayed as it got sorted. ISTR posting here that [Whatever They Were Called That Week] had turned out to be a political party version of Yes2AV. Did you perchance pick up some of their campaign organisers (or should that be "disorganisers"?) at the same time as the MPs? |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,800
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Apr 24, 2021 21:12:28 GMT
It's also concerning if it means Lib Dem HQ wasn't working with Royal Mail to ensure that freepost templates & drafts were compliant. Especially given the history of freeposts failures and Lib Dem causes you'd have thought someone would have prioritised this. You would have thought. We thought. And then had our leaflets delayed as it got sorted. Spot the hastily PaintShopPro'd editing:  |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Apr 24, 2021 21:14:54 GMT
It was from a Lib Dem perspective probably the worst national campaigns since I was first a candidate. I could not continue as a candidate because of the harassment campaign against my family and myself, but it would have been awful to be on the receiving end of the national campaign. I think it lost Tom Brake his seat (what other effects I cannot say).It definitely did, given the profile of Carshalton & Wallington. Elliot Coburn increased the Conservative vote by almost exactly the same share the Labour vote decreased by that year. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jun 17, 2021 14:40:32 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Wisconsin on Jul 6, 2021 9:58:19 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by greyfriar on Jul 19, 2021 8:36:54 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jul 19, 2021 8:57:00 GMT
Difficult. The Secretary of State could cite Local Government Act 2003, s. 55(1) and (2)(f) as giving power to make regulations against this sort of financial inducement, but I can't find anything in the regulations so far made which would apply. And these ballots do not come under electoral law in general. |
|
piperdave
SNP
Dalkeith; Midlothian/North & Musselburgh
Posts: 911
|
Post by piperdave on Jul 23, 2021 19:25:46 GMT
Difficult. The Secretary of State could cite Local Government Act 2003, s. 55(1) and (2)(f) as giving power to make regulations against this sort of financial inducement, but I can't find anything in the regulations so far made which would apply. And these ballots do not come under electoral law in general. Agree that the RPA or the other main electoral laws wouldn't apply. However, regulation 9(1) and (2)(c) would seem to enable the Secretary of State to invalidate the ballot if this activity unfairly swung the result. I also wondered if you prosecute the perpetrator as straightforward bribery? |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Aug 5, 2021 10:07:12 GMT
Judicial review of voting arrangements for blind and partially sighted people: www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2021/2233.pdfThe application fails but the Judge notes progress with an audio device which will let blind people vote without assistance. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Sept 21, 2021 16:06:07 GMT
According to a Departmental press release, ministerial responsibility for elections transfers from the Cabinet Office to the ugly-named Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. Not clear who is going to be the Minister responsible - possibly Gove himself as Kemi Badenoch is there to be Minister for Equalities, Chris Pincher has been doing housing and planning stuff, Eddie Hughes and Neil O'Brien are too new and too far down the pecking order, and surely you couldn't have Lord Greenhalgh (or any Lord) in charge of elections. |
|
