OTOH I wonder if exams will affect the election? Younger people will be revising hard for upcoming exams and may feel that they cannot afford the hour or two required to vote.
Quartz - please don’t feel you have to respond to every post in the thread. But obv. report this post, as you do.
So, the poll tracker suggests the Tories have pretty much bottomed out in the low-ish 40s. Dots in front of the Labour line suggest they continue to climb - my guess is this is mostly Undecided’s firming up.
Maybe the reality is somewhere like 43%-37% although, as discussed, the reality is very much will depend on turnout, and that particular market continues to firm up in the average range of 60-65%:
Guardian/ICM indicates L34/C45. 11-point lead.
Indeed, the current range is 1%-12%.
If the Daily Mail are to be believed (unlikely, but they are sometimes right) then the BBC have been caught biasing their audiences.
It doesn’t mean that at all; there are equal audience quotas for the two main parties, if one is full and the other isn’t … do you really need that explained?
This is very, very basic stuff.
I dunno - if anyone knows anything about deliberately implemented political biases, it’s the Daily Mail.
Meanwhile the guy behind the anti-Tory protest song “Liar, Liar” - which the BBC are not playing due to broadcast impartiality laws - says he was asked by BBC staff “not to go too hard on the Tories".
5 times out of 6 a Tory and rejected and the one time a Labour and gets selected? Sorry, but something smells rotten.
Hence my caveat.
How many other applicants were there declaring party support and what proportion were successful for each party? Had you considered the possibility that they might possibly have had a plethora of people in his demographic and a shortage of leftwing train drivers?
Six applications is a stunningly worthless sample. There is absolutely no conclusion that can be drawn from the man’s claims even if they are the gospel truth.
This is a perfect example of the frustration of this thread; another clueless-level hijack, this time based on extremist Mail propaganda.
It’s almost like someone really likes attention.
It’s mind boggling that the Daily Mail, a mess of isms and barely disguised hebephilia, has a website that is somehow even worse.
Anyway, Karen Bradley’s been having some “difficult, and often embarrassing, conversations” trying to defend May’s record on police numbers.
(warning auto playing video)
Meanwhile, Corbyn mistaking May for person capable of feeling shame, calls on her to resign.
That’ll earn you a warning, up_the-junction. Do not ignore moderator instructions.
In fact, any more of this and we’ll discuss tossing you a topic ban on UK Elections.
From my own experience, I applied four times to various events and was accepted to three.
I applied once to attend QT and was accepted, but was then unable to attend (although I managed to get them to allow my wife to go instead). This was nigh on 15 years ago so I can’t remember what sort of questions they asked me.
The Tories are being stupid yet again. Iain Dale has an article here.
He clearly hasn’t bothered to research it. Or he thinks we haven’t heard of Snopes, which covers this very subject here.
Idiot.
So why even mention it?
Because he’s a broadcaster. A reporter. He should know better. I’m just as critical of right-wing bias as left-wing bias.
He’s a well-known opinionator, party activist and political gadfly, not a reporter. Granted, it’s a silly piece of laziness and professional incompetence to pick something so easily debunked, but bias is his profession.
I said the exact same thing about Dale that time he was on the news fighting (and losing to) an OAP.