the snap general election thread

Sapphire

Sapphire wrote: »

Fella wrote: »

Electoral fraud being investigated with the suspicion being that students registered twice. Looks highly plausible given the track record that Corbyn's Momentum activists have of creating multiple accounts on social media, voting multiple times on e-petitions etc.[/i]

I wrote to my MP about this issue. There have been rumours of illegal electoral practices for quite a while now. They need to be thoroughly investigated countrywide, and decisively stopped and prevented in the future. There should be prosecutions of those who have voted two (or more) times (this is an illegal act), and their votes should be removed from the results of the last general election, whoever they voted for.

To allow this to continue would be a serious threat to democracy. (We are not a banana republic, yet.) :cool:

As an additional note to my initial message, this is part of the response my MP got from the local Electoral Services Officer to my (and others) concerns:

'We do frequently run checks on all electoral registrations within our authority to ensure that there are no duplicate entries, which does help prevent people from voting more than once within in our parliamentary constituencies. However, as mentioned previously, we only have access to records within our authority and the only way we can find out if someone is registered elsewhere is if they or their authority informs us of the move.'

In other words, there appears to be no countrywide system to check that votes are legally cast. This seems to me to be a serious omission – and one that needs to be promptly addressed so that illegal voting is curtailed.

Ballard

Sapphire wrote: »

Sapphire wrote: »

As an additional note to my initial message, this is part of the response my MP got from the local Electoral Services Officer to my (and others) concerns:

'We do frequently run checks on all electoral registrations within our authority to ensure that there are no duplicate entries, which does help prevent people from voting more than once within in our parliamentary constituencies. However, as mentioned previously, we only have access to records within our authority and the only way we can find out if someone is registered elsewhere is if they or their authority informs us of the move.'

In other words, there appears to be no countrywide system to check that votes are legally cast. This seems to me to be a serious omission – and one that needs to be promptly addressed so that illegal voting is curtailed.

The Daily Mail has succeeded. I haven't read the article but my guess is that they're quoting unnamed sources and relying on Twitter feeds to build a story that 'potentially thousands' of students voted twice. It may or may not be true but that's largely irrelevant because it will be enough to convince large numbers of their readership that it definitely happened. All of those who they claim voted twice will be Labour supporters too.

If there is an investigation that turns up nothing that won't matter because for plenty of people this is now the truth.

Sapphire

It hasn't only been stated in the Daily Mail. In any case, why would you be so concerned about any investigation, if you feel that such reports have been 'fabricated'? Surely it would be a good thing to at least ensure that the voting system is legally run, and that people are not able to vote more than once? And doing so would be a way of disproving the rumours if they are false, as you opine.

The comment from the Electoral Services Officer above was not a 'fabrication' – it seems distinctly odd to me that there is no mechanism for ensuring that people do not vote two or more times, or engage in other such practices that will affect election results.

Malthusian

If you voted only twice for Labour you aren't even trying. It's your social duty to sign up all your mothers and sisters up for postal voting and then deliver all 20 of your household's votes to your local baraderi community leader.

Vote early, vote often, vote Corbyn.

Ballard

Sapphire wrote: »

It hasn't only been stated in the Daily Mail. In any case, why would you be so concerned about any investigation, if you feel that such reports have been 'fabricated'? Surely it would be a good thing to at least ensure that the voting system is legally run, and that people are not able to vote more than once? And doing so would be a way of disproving the rumours if they are false, as you opine.

The comment from the Electoral Services Officer above was not a 'fabrication' – it seems distinctly odd to me that there is no mechanism for ensuring that people do not vote two or more times, or engage in other such practices that will affect election results.

Where have I said that I'm concerned about an investigation? I remember stating that if wrongdoing was found to have occurred then people should be prosecuted but I don't recall saying that there shouldn't be an investigation.

ThinkingOutLoud_2

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

The use of Holland is nothing like your example at all and what's more demonstrates poor knowledge of the Dutch people - and I have Dutch friends BTW.

... First your "as noted in Wiki"

... Certainly not "most" as you suggest.

Looks like I have your goat, if you need it back, just ask nicely.

So I have friends from the Neterhlands too - who do pique when people use "Holland" so it rather depends who you ask.

Wiki = facts for those who cannot look further which is why schools often discourage children from citing it. Tourist tack proves nothing either - did that Windmill come from Holland or another part of the Netherlands?

Almost 50% of people have below average IQ. Most people say they are not amongst them.

Some is not one to two, but then it is not most, agreed. Some Scots don't like to be told they are English - some ignore it. Most English don't mind if the Scots are called English are or not. Some do.

Let us do a straw poll then...and also look at the history of why:-
http://www.fifa.com/associations/association=ned/index.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands_at_the_Olympics
https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/countries/member-countries/netherlands_en
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-Netherlands-also-called-Holland-while-its-people-are-called-Dutch
http://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/the-difference-between-holland-the-netherlands

Fella

ThinkingOutLoud wrote: »

Looks like I have your goat, if you need it back, just ask nicely.

So I have friends from the Neterhlands too - who do pique when people use "Holland" so it rather depends who you ask.

Wiki = facts for those who cannot look further which is why schools often discourage children from citing it. Tourist tack proves nothing either - did that Windmill come from Holland or another part of the Netherlands?

Almost 50% of people have below average IQ. Most people say they are not amongst them.

Some is not one to two, but then it is not most, agreed. Some Scots don't like to be told they are English - some ignore it. Most English don't mind if the Scots are called English are or not. Some do.

Let us do a straw poll then...and also look at the history of why:-
http://www.fifa.com/associations/association=ned/index.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands_at_the_Olympics
https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/countries/member-countries/netherlands_en
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-Netherlands-also-called-Holland-while-its-people-are-called-Dutch
http://www.cgpgrey.com/blog/the-difference-between-holland-the-netherlands

Although when he said Holland you instantly knew he was referring to The Netherlands which rather proves the point that it wasn't a problem saying Holland.

Moby

Fella wrote: »

More gibberish from you. If you're saying I said something then quote it so I know what you're talking about. I've consistently said Corbyn got a good hiding in the election which is FACT. If you're saying I said something else then quote it.

Absolute rot. No one who is reasonable agrees that Corbyn ' got a good hiding'. That's just your wishful thinking as usual.

Fella

Moby wrote: »

Absolute rot. No one who is reasonable agrees that Corbyn ' got a good hiding'. That's just your wishful thinking as usual.

Less seats than even the hapless Kinnock managed. A good hiding by any definition.

Unless you're now also claiming that Kinnock's trouncing was a good result? He did better than Corbyn. I don't recall even the most deluded of Labour supporters thinking Kinnock did anything other than disastrously.

Herzlos

Fella wrote: »

Less seats than even the hapless Kinnock managed. A good hiding by any definition.

Unless you're now also claiming that Kinnock's trouncing was a good result? He did better than Corbyn. I don't recall even the most deluded of Labour supporters thinking Kinnock did anything other than disastrously.

Is Corbyn and Labour in a better or worse position now than 6 months ago?