Still talking of Twitter but getting back to BBC-related matters...
I see that #SackKuenssberg is trending on Twitter. (Isn't it always?).
Corbynistas are going absolutely mad and accusing her of breaking electoral law by revealing how postal votes are trending. Why? Because she said this on today's Politics Live?:
The postal votes, of course, have already arrived. The parties, they're not meant to look at it but they do kind of get a hint, and on both sides people are telling me that the postal votes that are in are looking pretty grim for Labour in lots of parts of the country.
Here's a flavour of the (politer) reaction:
- Time for BBC to sack Laura Kuenssberg to protect it’s [sic] already ruined reputation. Broadcasters are not allowed to reveal postal votes before 10PM polling day as it influences the vote. Laura has proved to be a Tory machine.
- Dear Tony Hall, DG. This must surely be Laura Kuenssberg'd [sic] final draft of her resignation: She has either 1) committed a crime under the RPA (punishable by imprisonment).2) Amplified another LIE from "Senior Tory Sources" without even student-level fact checking.
- I have rung their [sic] Electoral Commission to complain about Laura Kuenssberg speaking on TV that The postal votes show it is ‘grim for Labour’ - I am so ANGRY!! Call Electoral Commission 0333 103 1928 & complain. We are NOT a Banana Republic.
- Not once in my life have I ever advocated someone losing their job. But Kussenberg [sic] must go. Her bias is obvious and deplorable and she is now breaking the law to undermine democracy.
The Electoral Commission itself has tweeted the following this afternoon:
It may be an offence to communicate any information obtained at postal vote opening sessions, including about votes cast, before a poll has closed. Anyone with information to suggest this has happened should report it immediately to the police.— Electoral Commission (@ElectoralCommUK) December 11, 2019
So, where does that leave Laura K?
She was, after all, only reporting what people 'on both sides' are telling her. Aren't those people the 'guilty' ones?
Or does her 'passing on' what they're communicating about the votes cast also constitute 'communicating information obtained at postal vote opening sesssions, including about votes cast, before a poll has closed'?
In other words, are her Corbynista critics right?
I'm beggared if I know. Do you?
She was, after all, only reporting what people 'on both sides' are telling her. Aren't those people the 'guilty' ones?
Or does her 'passing on' what they're communicating about the votes cast also constitute 'communicating information obtained at postal vote opening sesssions, including about votes cast, before a poll has closed'?
In other words, are her Corbynista critics right?
I'm beggared if I know. Do you?
Yes, they're right, and she's wrong.
ReplyDeleteI read that postal votes can be delivered to the appropriate polling station on election day by the said voter in person - who will need to show their ID. This may be a subtle call to arms to all postal voters (traditionally more Labour than other parties) to complete their vote if they haven't already done so.
DeleteCould be, but it's probably more that she wants to stay ahead of the career game - she's pretty full on and works too hard. This was a (legal) mistake and she should just say so in my opinion.
DeletePersonally I think the Corbynistas should be thanking her. I wouldn't be surprised if this was deliberate on her part to mobilise the Labour vote. Perhaps I'm being unfair but who is her statement more likely to motivate.
ReplyDeleteI shall have a nightmare tonight in which the Supreme Court declares the election result nul and void and we have to go through the whole filthy business again!
ReplyDeleteArthur's point: postal votes can be delivered on election day, "by the said voter IN PERSON," is an interesting one - haven't we read tales, in previous elections, of imams turning up bearing large numbers of postal votes?
If our Laura was naughty for passing on what she heard aren't those that broadcast what Laura said also naughty?
ReplyDeleteGood messengers, bad messengers, who is to say?
She has no defence. Yes, we know all the parties try and estimate from the openings but that is no excuse for a chief reporter from our public broadcaster to pass on their subjective assessments either way and boradcast them to the whole nation.
ReplyDeletePersonally I would say it was a sackable offence and that in this case the Corbynistas (like the broken clock) are correct. She should certainly be suspended for the rest of the election campaign.
I thought she was looking extremely tired the other day - maybe she's had the flu and that affected her judgement. Iain Dale has had the flu and was coming out with a load of tosh last night... :)
The Corbys are right. The BBC shouldn't be broadcasting the information no matter who told them what.
ReplyDeleteIn my eyes the crime of which Kuennsberg and the BBC are guilty is babbling. There is far too much babble altogether and too little formal reporting of facts and events rather than what some BBC airtime filler babbler thinks. That's why I turn off most of the 'News' or rather don't even turn it on in the first place.