|
Post by andrewteale on Jan 24, 2021 12:31:09 GMT
Hayfield. You don't know what you're talking about and you are too thick to grasp that. Please shut up. Harry has a perfectly valid point. If it's not safe to campaign then nor is it safe (or democratic) to hold an election. The government has decreed that volunteers cannot deliver political leaflets but commercial companies can. I wonder who that favours. The vast majority of local council leaders have just said that the worst possible outcome is for them to make all the preparations for balloting in May and then it get postponed at the last minute. Polling stations are definitely public places throughout the year and even more so on election day. Most of the activities that take place in these locations are currently on hold yet suddenly we're excpected to open them all up for a single day. With the government having already ruled out early voting and all-postal voting, the risks are obvious. You've clearly not been here very long if you can say "Harry has a perfectly valid point" without irony. For years on this forum he has been looking at what is going on and jumping without apparent logic to completely the wrong conclusion. He has a long history of this. If Harry says something you can guarantee that the truth is the diametric opposite.
|
|
|
Post by grahammurray on Jan 24, 2021 12:34:22 GMT
Harry has a perfectly valid point. If it's not safe to campaign then nor is it safe (or democratic) to hold an election. The government has decreed that volunteers cannot deliver political leaflets but commercial companies can. I wonder who that favours. The vast majority of local council leaders have just said that the worst possible outcome is for them to make all the preparations for balloting in May and then it get postponed at the last minute. Polling stations are definitely public places throughout the year and even more so on election day. Most of the activities that take place in these locations are currently on hold yet suddenly we're excpected to open them all up for a single day. With the government having already ruled out early voting and all-postal voting, the risks are obvious. You've clearly not been here very long if you can say "Harry has a perfectly valid point" without irony. For years on this forum he has been looking at what is going on and jumping without apparent logic to completely the wrong conclusion. He has a long history of this. If Harry says something you can guarantee that the truth is the diametric opposite. Except that Harry has a perfectly valid point.
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Jan 24, 2021 12:48:58 GMT
You've clearly not been here very long if you can say "Harry has a perfectly valid point" without irony. For years on this forum he has been looking at what is going on and jumping without apparent logic to completely the wrong conclusion. He has a long history of this. If Harry says something you can guarantee that the truth is the diametric opposite. Except that Harry has a perfectly valid point. I refer you to my previous post. For the reasons given earlier I am loath to unpick whatever passes in Harry's mind for logic, but I will point that there is no definition of "public place" in the Coronavirus Act or any of the COVID regs and as such I'm rather more unclear than usual as to what he's talking about. There are however exemptions in the COVID regs that already exist allowing leaving home "for the purposes of voting, counting of votes or activities ancillary to voting or the counting of votes". The USA has just held a whole series of elections in circumstances not much better than what we find ourselves in now. Many other countries have held elections in the last year. There is good reason to believe that conditions in the UK will have significantly improved by May. It can be done.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Jan 24, 2021 12:56:18 GMT
Except that Harry has a perfectly valid point. I refer you to my previous post. For the reasons given earlier I am loath to unpick whatever passes in Harry's mind for logic, but I will point that there is no definition of "public place" in the Coronavirus Act or any of the COVID regs and as such I'm rather more unclear than usual as to what he's talking about. There are however exemptions in the COVID regs that already exist allowing leaving home "for the purposes of voting, counting of votes or activities ancillary to voting or the counting of votes". The USA has just held a whole series of elections in circumstances not much better than what we find ourselves in now. Many other countries have held elections in the last year. There is good reason to believe that conditions in the UK will have significantly improved by May. It can be done. Come on Andrew - 'there was a Tweet last night'. It doesn't matter that there's no mention of who the Tweet was from, obviously it is completely valid to repeat the content of the tweet as if it is verified fact and then to draw various fuckwitted conclusions from it
|
|
|
Post by grahammurray on Jan 24, 2021 13:10:00 GMT
Except that Harry has a perfectly valid point. I refer you to my previous post. For the reasons given earlier I am loath to unpick whatever passes in Harry's mind for logic, but I will point that there is no definition of "public place" in the Coronavirus Act or any of the COVID regs and as such I'm rather more unclear than usual as to what he's talking about. There are however exemptions in the COVID regs that already exist allowing leaving home "for the purposes of voting, counting of votes or activities ancillary to voting or the counting of votes". The USA has just held a whole series of elections in circumstances not much better than what we find ourselves in now. Many other countries have held elections in the last year. There is good reason to believe that conditions in the UK will have significantly improved by May. It can be done. I assume then that there's also no definition of what does not constitute a public place. An election is not just about polling day itself, it's about the campaign and the dissemination of ideas and policies. The fact that the government has just deemed political leafletting by voluteers to be against the regulations but not for a commercial organisation to do it reeks of self-interest. The USA did indeed hold elections in awful circumstances but in many cases these were done on the basis of a massively extended in-person voting period and,. in some cases, an all-postal ballot. If they'd run theior election on a single poiling day there would have been Covid carnage. Either that or many people would have been discouraged from voting. Their systems and practices of contacting voters are also hugely different from those in the UK. Harry has a perfectly valid point.
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Jan 24, 2021 13:35:52 GMT
I refer you to my previous post. For the reasons given earlier I am loath to unpick whatever passes in Harry's mind for logic, but I will point that there is no definition of "public place" in the Coronavirus Act or any of the COVID regs and as such I'm rather more unclear than usual as to what he's talking about. There are however exemptions in the COVID regs that already exist allowing leaving home "for the purposes of voting, counting of votes or activities ancillary to voting or the counting of votes". The USA has just held a whole series of elections in circumstances not much better than what we find ourselves in now. Many other countries have held elections in the last year. There is good reason to believe that conditions in the UK will have significantly improved by May. It can be done. I assume then that there's also no definition of what does not constitute a public place. An election is not just about polling day itself, it's about the campaign and the dissemination of ideas and policies. The fact that the government has just deemed political leafletting by voluteers to be against the regulations but not for a commercial organisation to do it reeks of self-interest. The USA did indeed hold elections in awful circumstances but in many cases these were done on the basis of a massively extended in-person voting period and,. in some cases, an all-postal ballot. If they'd run theior election on a single poiling day there would have been Covid carnage. Either that or many people would have been discouraged from voting. Their systems and practices of contacting voters are also hugely different from those in the UK. Harry has a perfectly valid point. As I have now told you four times, Harry by definition never has a perfectly valid point. I have no idea what point he was trying to make, but it's not the point you're trying to make. To address your points: (1) You only need a definition of "public space" in legislation if you're going to do something with it. I keep an eye on what comes out of legislation.gov.uk and I will report back if I see anything relevant to this. (2) My quote "for the purposes of voting, counting of votes or activities ancillary to voting or the counting of votes" was copied and pasted from the COVID regs. One of the problems we have had all the way through this hideous mess is that there are regulations and there is guidance, and quite often there is guidance which the government is keen to stress which is not in the legislation (like the current "stay local" business which is not in the regs at all). It would seem to me that leafleting could arguably come under the category of an "activity ancillary to voting". (3) I am well aware that the USA has different electoral administration to ours. Some states have had all-postal votes for years (Washington for one), some massively expanded postal and early voting, some states didn't change their procedures very much at all. There are some solutions they went for that would not fly here (like sending a postal vote to everyone and then allowing polling stations to open). There was quite a lot of last-minute decision-making and rule changes. But the USA started from the premise that the elections were going to go ahead, they were going to go ahead as safely as they could reasonably be made, and all that hard work by the administrators and the campaigns paid off with a massive increase in turnout and participation. There's no reason that couldn't happen here.
|
|
|
Post by grahammurray on Jan 24, 2021 14:39:46 GMT
I assume then that there's also no definition of what does not constitute a public place. An election is not just about polling day itself, it's about the campaign and the dissemination of ideas and policies. The fact that the government has just deemed political leafletting by voluteers to be against the regulations but not for a commercial organisation to do it reeks of self-interest. The USA did indeed hold elections in awful circumstances but in many cases these were done on the basis of a massively extended in-person voting period and,. in some cases, an all-postal ballot. If they'd run theior election on a single poiling day there would have been Covid carnage. Either that or many people would have been discouraged from voting. Their systems and practices of contacting voters are also hugely different from those in the UK. Harry has a perfectly valid point. As I have now told you four times, Harry by definition never has a perfectly valid point. I have no idea what point he was trying to make, but it's not the point you're trying to make. To address your points: (1) You only need a definition of "public space" in legislation if you're going to do something with it. I keep an eye on what comes out of legislation.gov.uk and I will report back if I see anything relevant to this. (2) My quote "for the purposes of voting, counting of votes or activities ancillary to voting or the counting of votes" was copied and pasted from the COVID regs. One of the problems we have had all the way through this hideous mess is that there are regulations and there is guidance, and quite often there is guidance which the government is keen to stress which is not in the legislation (like the current "stay local" business which is not in the regs at all). It would seem to me that leafleting could arguably come under the category of an "activity ancillary to voting". (3) I am well aware that the USA has different electoral administration to ours. Some states have had all-postal votes for years (Washington for one), some massively expanded postal and early voting, some states didn't change their procedures very much at all. There are some solutions they went for that would not fly here (like sending a postal vote to everyone and then allowing polling stations to open). There was quite a lot of last-minute decision-making and rule changes. But the USA started from the premise that the elections were going to go ahead, they were going to go ahead as safely as they could reasonably be made, and all that hard work by the administrators and the campaigns paid off with a massive increase in turnout and participation. There's no reason that couldn't happen here. There are lots of reasons. www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jan/24/english-council-chiefs-back-postponement-of-may-local-elections?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other&fbclid=IwAR0zyNToDZxr4jo_aSjkLAIOpyYU3KW2V1bdsw9vdlj_Y1N8isdBjcFztbASee, even Robert Jenrick makes a valid point every now and then. In addition 1. If polling stations either for that purpose or whatever they were built for are not public places then I really don't know where is. 2. Leafletting could and did come under the category of "activity ancillary to voting". Lots of reports I've seen say that this was changed at the end of last week. 3. The masssive increase in turnout in the USA was aided by the changes that many states made - changes that there's no chance of the government enabling here. It's not as though, unlike America, local councils can set their own rules to suit their own conditions. Turnout there increased far more in areas with a long period of early in-person polling stations and even then there were queues that took hours to vote. If that had been compressed into a single day there would have been carnage. Lots of stations here will not be able to be made Covid secure and therefore less suitable ones will need to be found, or they will be merged with all danger that entails. I don't think we should be taking lessions from the USA when it comes to pandemic safety anyway. Anf finally, polling day there is fixed by the beloved Constitution.
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Jan 24, 2021 14:56:53 GMT
Please could you provide legislative evidence (ie not statements from ministers) for your assertions (1) and (2), because I can't find any and I don't believe you have any either.
|
|
|
Post by grahammurray on Jan 24, 2021 15:31:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Jan 24, 2021 15:46:32 GMT
I specifically ask you for evidence that is not a statement from a minister and you supply as evidence a statement from a minister. Jesus wept. You're going on the block list now for being thick.
|
|
|
Post by grahammurray on Jan 24, 2021 16:06:30 GMT
I specifically ask you for evidence that is not a statement from a minister and you supply as evidence a statement from a minister. Jesus wept. You're going on the block list now for being thick. I really don't care what you asked me for. It seems obvious that you knew about this letter or something similar, which is why you used weasel words in your question. Are you saying that she jumped the gun in sending it out and, if so, what action should be taken against her? And is doorstep campaigning now allowed or not? Sorry for seeming thick but I'm genuinely confused as to whether it's against the law or a Tory Minister is acting beyond her powers to shut it down.
|
|
|
Post by southernliberal on Jan 24, 2021 19:20:29 GMT
The law is pretty clear that you would (from a purely legal standpoint) be able to leaflet - political leafletting under most guises would reasonably count as volunteering, something expressly committed in the legislation while if the person doing the leafletting happened to be a local councillor, you could further argue it is a core part of their job, in the same respect as someone employed as a pizza menu leafleteer can carry on working throughout lockdown.
However clearly what the minister has sent is, effectively, guidance, albeit guidance that I expect almost all parties to follow.
I've already seen one Conservative councillor celebrating the fact that they can afford to pay Royal Mail to deliver their leaflets while other parties, while following this government guidance, cannot...and therefore cannot leaflet.
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jan 24, 2021 19:52:47 GMT
The law is pretty clear that you would (from a purely legal standpoint) be able to leaflet - political leafletting under most guises would reasonably count as volunteering, something expressly committed in the legislation while if the person doing the leafletting happened to be a local councillor, you could further argue it is a core part of their job, in the same respect as someone employed as a pizza menu leafleteer can carry on working throughout lockdown. However clearly what the minister has sent is, effectively, guidance, albeit guidance that I expect almost all parties to follow. I've already seen one Conservative councillor celebrating the fact that they can afford to pay Royal Mail to deliver their leaflets while other parties, while following this government guidance, cannot...and therefore cannot leaflet. If it's guidance then the parties are under no obligation to follow it. Should they choose to they lose any right to complain.
|
|
|
Post by southernliberal on Jan 24, 2021 20:04:09 GMT
The law is pretty clear that you would (from a purely legal standpoint) be able to leaflet - political leafletting under most guises would reasonably count as volunteering, something expressly committed in the legislation while if the person doing the leafletting happened to be a local councillor, you could further argue it is a core part of their job, in the same respect as someone employed as a pizza menu leafleteer can carry on working throughout lockdown. However clearly what the minister has sent is, effectively, guidance, albeit guidance that I expect almost all parties to follow. I've already seen one Conservative councillor celebrating the fact that they can afford to pay Royal Mail to deliver their leaflets while other parties, while following this government guidance, cannot...and therefore cannot leaflet. If it's guidance then the parties are under no obligation to follow it. Should they choose to they lose any right to complain. Politically, to not be following government guidance would be pretty toxic, so parties still have a right to complain, in fact all parties should be pushing for official government guidance to be published as to how activists and local councillors CAN campaign during a pandemic, with the elections a little over three months away. This is especially true given that the police have confused the matter even further by saying its not allowed: www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-dorset-55688224
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,714
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Jan 24, 2021 20:19:23 GMT
For a politician she's got a very limited grasp on what politics is all about. "Leafletting is to restricted, but voters can still get information remotely". Politics is all about the candidate getting information *to* the voter, not the voter seeking information *from* the candidate. If a voter is looking for information on a candidate, by that very action they are already somebody who is already considering that candidate. The entire political process is about contacting those people who *ARE* *NOT* looking for information on the candidate to persuade them to do so. Example: Most Whitby has had no LibDem candidates for several decades. How TF does any elector know that there will a LibDem candidate if the LibDem candidate hasn't informed them? A plague on these morons.
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Jan 24, 2021 20:33:06 GMT
For a politician she's got a very limited grasp on what politics is all about. "Leafletting is to restricted, but voters can still get information remotely". Politics is all about the candidate getting information *to* the voter, not the voter seeking information *from* the candidate. If a voter is looking for information on a candidate, by that very action they are already somebody who is already considering that candidate. The entire political process is about contacting those people who *ARE* *NOT* looking for information on the candidate to persuade them to do so. Example: Most Whitby has had no LibDem candidates for several decades. How TF does any elector know that there will a LibDem candidate if the LibDem candidate hasn't informed them? A plague on these morons.But are they morons, or are they entirely rational politicians who want to suppress voter turnout and think they've hit on a scheme to not only do that but allow them to label anyone who objects as irresponsible/homicidal maniacs?
|
|
|
Post by southernliberal on Jan 24, 2021 20:55:14 GMT
For a politician she's got a very limited grasp on what politics is all about. "Leafletting is to restricted, but voters can still get information remotely". Politics is all about the candidate getting information *to* the voter, not the voter seeking information *from* the candidate. If a voter is looking for information on a candidate, by that very action they are already somebody who is already considering that candidate. The entire political process is about contacting those people who *ARE* *NOT* looking for information on the candidate to persuade them to do so. Example: Most Whitby has had no LibDem candidates for several decades. How TF does any elector know that there will a LibDem candidate if the LibDem candidate hasn't informed them? A plague on these morons.But are they morons, or are they entirely rational politicians who want to suppress voter turnout and think they've hit on a scheme to not only do that but allow them to label anyone who objects as irresponsible/homicidal maniacs? Either way it ain't good.
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jan 24, 2021 20:57:44 GMT
For a politician she's got a very limited grasp on what politics is all about. "Leafletting is to restricted, but voters can still get information remotely". Politics is all about the candidate getting information *to* the voter, not the voter seeking information *from* the candidate. If a voter is looking for information on a candidate, by that very action they are already somebody who is already considering that candidate. The entire political process is about contacting those people who *ARE* *NOT* looking for information on the candidate to persuade them to do so. Example: Most Whitby has had no LibDem candidates for several decades. How TF does any elector know that there will a LibDem candidate if the LibDem candidate hasn't informed them? A plague on these morons.But are they morons, or are they entirely rational politicians who want to suppress voter turnout and think they've hit on a scheme to not only do that but allow them to label anyone who objects as irresponsible/homicidal maniacs? Let them. I doubt whether those who exhibit the most hysteria would be likely to vote in person anyway Yet more reason not to vote for these parties, though.
|
|
|
Post by markgoodair on Jan 24, 2021 22:05:51 GMT
For a politician she's got a very limited grasp on what politics is all about. "Leafletting is to restricted, but voters can still get information remotely". Politics is all about the candidate getting information *to* the voter, not the voter seeking information *from* the candidate. If a voter is looking for information on a candidate, by that very action they are already somebody who is already considering that candidate. The entire political process is about contacting those people who *ARE* *NOT* looking for information on the candidate to persuade them to do so. Example: Most Whitby has had no LibDem candidates for several decades. How TF does any elector know that there will a LibDem candidate if the LibDem candidate hasn't informed them? A plague on these morons.But are they morons, or are they entirely rational politicians who want to suppress voter turnout and think they've hit on a scheme to not only do that but allow them to label anyone who objects as irresponsible/homicidal maniacs? It would appear to be the latter.
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Jan 24, 2021 22:51:32 GMT
But are they morons, or are they entirely rational politicians who want to suppress voter turnout and think they've hit on a scheme to not only do that but allow them to label anyone who objects as irresponsible/homicidal maniacs? Let them. I doubt whether those who exhibit the most hysteria would be likely to vote in person anyway Yet more reason not to vote for these parties, though. I think you are missing J.G.Harston's point
|
|