2015 Election

[tmcd35]

I thought it was just the news outlets that weren't allowed to? Also, if its illegal, then why do we always get mugged on the way in/out by party supporters asking who you voted for?

 

Yep, the BBC/ITV/Sky exit polls at around 10pm tonight should give a very good early indication of the direction of the next government.

[tech_guy]

Charlie Brooker was a bit lame last night, wasn't he? Not on form, not his usual acerbic self. The best part was the Russell Brand's 100 days in power.

[Garacesh]

I thought it was just the news outlets that weren't allowed to? Also, if its illegal, then why do we always get mugged on the way in/out by party supporters asking who you voted for?

It's perfectly legal to reveal your own vote, just not anybody else's. Presumably the news get around this by not publishing the identities, just statistics of what responses were given.

[GREED]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-32451429

 

Yes you can tell the world who you voted for. You can't tell people how someone else voted. Not should you do anything in the polling station.

[pcstru]

Oh, also, just a word of warning to all - I believe there are some laws against publishing who anyone voted for (including yourself).

This probably relates to the Representation of the people Act 1986. It does not bar you from disclosing who you voted for after you leave the polling station [*1], although if you are posting from inside the polling station, you might be on slightly dodgy ground.

 

[*1] Of course you could say you voted for anyone, the only proof of who you voted for would be your ballot paper and it would be illegal to supply proof of who you voted for by (say) publishing a picture of your ballot paper which you took in the polling station.

[Gatt]

For those considering not voting..

 

[LosOjos]

Charlie Brooker was a bit lame last night, wasn't he? Not on form, not his usual acerbic self. The best part was the Russell Brand's 100 days in power.

 

I was a bit disappointed too. Some laugh out loud moments, but far too much of Philomena Cunk and Barry S**tpeas I thought; they're occasionally amusing but last night I just hated every second wasted with them on screen!

[Garacesh]

[*1] Of course you could say you voted for anyone, the only proof of who you voted for would be your ballot paper and it would be illegal to supply proof of who you voted for by (say) publishing a picture of your ballot paper which you took in the polling station.

Actually, it isn't illegal to take photographs, even of your ballot. Your polling number is the bit that you're not allowed to disclose, so most polling stations put up 'NO PHOTOGRAPHY' signs etc but a photograph in of itself is only illegal if it reveals a ballot number or shows how somebody else is voting.

 

Edit: @LosOjos - I didn't watch it, but one cannot have too much too much Barry S:censored:tpeas. Just isn't possible.

Edited May 7, 2015 by Garacesh

[pcstru]

I have no issue with people voting for a party - but I do have an issue with people voting for a party whose manifesto they have not even read

I would think only a small minority of voters read the party manifesto's. I certainly don't. I did read a manifesto in 1992 - I will never get those hours back.

[localzuk]

This probably relates to the Representation of the people Act 1986. It does not bar you from disclosing who you voted for after you leave the polling station [*1], although if you are posting from inside the polling station, you might be on slightly dodgy ground.

 

[*1] Of course you could say you voted for anyone, the only proof of who you voted for would be your ballot paper and it would be illegal to supply proof of who you voted for by (say) publishing a picture of your ballot paper which you took in the polling station.

 

The issue is that Edugeek would be saying who you voted for... So, they would be breaking that law as they would be publishing the information would they not? Especially as they moderate comments on here.

[GREED]

I was a bit disappointed too. Some laugh out loud moments, but far too much of Philomena Cunk and Barry S**tpeas I thought; they're occasionally amusing but last night I just hated every second wasted with them on screen!

 

I really do not find them funny at all... should be a full hour of Brooker and his acerbic charm.

[Garacesh]

I wouldn't expect so, @localzuk.. EduGeek would simply be the means of communication.. It's still down to the individual to reveal. No different than tweeting it or posting it on facebook.

[GREED]

The issue is that Edugeek would be saying who you voted for... So, they would be breaking that law as they would be publishing the information would they not? Especially as they moderate comments on here.

 

So in the same way twitter would too? FACEBOOK? surely user comments are their/you/my own?

[pcstru]

Actually, it isn't illegal to take photographs, even of your ballot. Your polling number is the bit that you're not allowed to disclose, so most polling stations put up 'NO PHOTOGRAPHY' signs etc but a photograph in of itself is only illegal if it reveals a ballot number or shows how somebody else is voting.

I did say it would be illegal to publish the photo. Technically I believe even that only applies if you publish it before the polls close.

[localzuk]

IMHO, necessary cuts - if Labour had remained in, there wouldn't have been any cuts and no reserves to fall back on.

 

Give this a read, its quite illuminating. Finally! Exposed! The Deficit Myth! So, David Cameron When Are You Going to Apologise?Â|ÂRamesh Patel

 

Think of it this way. The country's spending is not like personal spending. If you buy something on credit, it is unlikely to ever make a return for you - your sofa doesn't create any income.

 

If the government spends £1bn though, they directly create jobs. Those jobs also need local support from industry - even down to lunches. Those jobs and the supporting industry around them result in tax revenue. On top of that, third parties like to invest where there is already stable investment and government support. That leads to more investment, more tax revenue and increased GDP. So, deficit spending is a good thing for the country. The interest rates the government pays for its borrowing is significantly lower than the extra tax revenue they receive from that spending.

 

So, no, not necessary cuts at all. Education providers have closed all over the place. Education IT companies have closed, or downsized. People have lost jobs. That means less tax income. That means less need for that local sandwich shop, which closes and those jobs are lost also. Job losses are like dominoes.

[localzuk]

I wouldn't expect so, @localzuk.. EduGeek would simply be the means of communication.. It's still down to the individual to reveal. No different than tweeting it or posting it on facebook.

 

Does it not depend on the term "publish"? This is an actively moderated forum. If it weren't then you could claim that everyone could post whatever they want and you're not publishing anything - its just a communications platform, but as things are removed and the like, it means there is editorial control over the content that is published.

[rickjames]

I was a bit disappointed too. Some laugh out loud moments, but far too much of Philomena Cunk and Barry S**tpeas I thought; they're occasionally amusing but last night I just hated every second wasted with them on screen!

 

Barry was on like, once?

 

Philomena is great.

[pcstru]

The issue is that Edugeek would be saying who you voted for... So, they would be breaking that law as they would be publishing the information would they not? Especially as they moderate comments on here.

I do not believe so. To be in breach they would need to have obtained the information inside of the polling station.

[GREED]

Does it not depend on the term "publish"? This is an actively moderated forum. If it weren't then you could claim that everyone could post whatever they want and you're not publishing anything - its just a communications platform, but as things are removed and the like, it means there is editorial control over the content that is published.

 

So in the same way newspapers publish who some is or has voted for? Read any paper this week and it will be littered with that. Plus... they and we could be lying!!

[rickjames]

Also had some chap outside asking for peoples voting/polling card numbers, his reasoning so 'that politicians don't bother you'. It looked like a vaguely legitimate thing aimed at determining turnout, but I didn't have my polling card on me. Walked in and out, easy job.

[localzuk]

I do not believe so. To be in breach they would need to have obtained the information inside of the polling station.

 

As a vote is performed in the polling station, isn't that always the case then?

[CAM]

You are free to yell "I VOTED TORY" in giant letters on the forum. Nothing against the law (might get funny looks who you voted for though, and no I'm not voting Tory).

 

You aren't free to yell "GREED VOTED UKIP" because it would be seen as intimidating someone for their choice and revealing who they voted for (no relation to Graz's actual vote BTW, controversial party picked deliberately to prove a point!)

 

It also isn't acceptable to take a selfie in a polling booth, post it on Facebook and have someone marking their ballot paper in the background with their vote clearly visible. Something for the "whack everything on social media I don't care YOLO" crowd to chew on.

 

Also aggregated statistics are anonymous, hence why the exit polls are allowed as it is just a mark on a page. SUM(x) voted Tory, SUM(y) voted Labour, SUM(z) voted Lib Dem.

Edited May 7, 2015 by CAM

[GREED]

Also had some chap outside asking for peoples voting/polling card numbers, his reasoning so 'that politicians don't bother you'. It looked like a vaguely legitimate thing aimed at determining turnout, but I didn't have my polling card on me. Walked in and out, easy job.

 

How can that be legit... no one except the counters (or polling station admin for marking you in) should know that.

[sonofsanta]

Further discussion of the austerity myth: Britain: For the Love of God, Please Stop David Cameron | Benjamin Studebaker (and a follow up post @ 13 Terrible Tory Counterarguments | Benjamin Studebaker)

 

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) subsequently came out with a paper stating that the multiplier (the effect of government spending on economic growth) had been massively underestimated. Then it got worse–the IMF revealed that because the multiplier is so large, austerity shrinks the economy enough to cancel out debt relief. Let me be clear–austerity reduces growth so much that it undercuts government revenue and prevents governments from shrinking their deficits. I wrote about this at the time. It was and remains shockingly clear evidence that austerity was and is failing even to reduce debt and deficits. The UK is in a significantly worse fiscal position than it was in 5 years ago.

 

The IMF themselves have declared austerity to be a failure. Why do all our politicians keep insisting they know better?

[GREED]

 

You aren't free to yell "GREED VOTED UKIP" because it would be seen as intimidating someone for their choice and revealing who they voted for (no relation to Graz's actual vote BTW, controversial party picked deliberately to prove a point!)

 

Not to mention intimidating to me while my house is being egged!

 

Haha good shout sir ;-)

 

If the Monster Raving Loony Party was still about I'd br straight in there!!