From webstump at ..iark.greenend.org.uk Sat Dec 27 13:52:47 2025 Return-path: To: JNugent73 at ..il.com Subject: Re: Re: General Election Timing References: In-Reply-To: Reply-To: matthewv+ulmtestmod at ..riolis.greenend.org.uk Errors-To: webstump+ulm-bounces at ..iark.greenend.org.uk X-Webstump-Event: [176677817618043] reject notnew Message-Id: From: webstump+ulm-bounces at ..iark.greenend.org.uk Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2025 13:52:47 +0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 The post that you submitted to uk.legal.moderated has been rejected by a moderator. This post contains insufficient new material. Similar points have been made already in this discussion, which is in danger of becoming too repetitive. The group charter and moderation policy can be found at https://uklegal.weebly.com/ Disputed moderation decisions can be discussed in the newsgroup uk.net.news.moderation ============================================ Full text of your message follows > From webstump@chiark.greenend.org.uk Fri Dec 26 19:42:56 2025 > Return-path: > Envelope-to: webstump+?@slimy.greenend.org.uk > Authentication-Results: mailhub-cam-d.mythic-beasts.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=uni-berlin.de; dkim=pass header.d=uni-berlin.de header.s=fub01 header.a=rsa-sha256 > X-STUMP-Warning-0: Next header (DKIM-Signature) truncated! > X-STUMP-Warning-1: Next header (DKIM-Signature) truncated! > X-STUMP-Warning-2: Next header (DKIM-Signature) truncated! > X-STUMP-Warning-3: Next header (DKIM-Signature) truncated! > DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=uni-berlin.de; s=fub01; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:Mime-Version:References:Message-ID:Date:Subject:From:To:From: Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:In-Reply-To: References; bh=01a0qCufw2Bx05GVZcwxdTlp/W5W+gvu8thxoksDgUE=; t=1766778170; x=1767382970; b=D4eUcgx5VnHAMAhlX94y0Jbm0cIk9Ysg21Zi4/QxktTZ3F+tjjAQTyK+D41uP zciJ+xDTDzwGLD > From: JNugent > Newsgroups: uk.legal.moderated > Subject: Re: General Election Timing > Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2025 19:42:49 +0000 > Organization: Home User > Message-ID: > References: > > > > > > > > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > X-Orig-X-Trace: individual.net rAsenjf3nE3IJjKCP3Ge+gnykOKAlfc1CQjplDXBkuMnz9pbo4 > Cancel-Lock: sha1:Dxi6fVNuzZDPeYWjvtjvHdQO1oc= sha256:LjRQhDocK4BA+125+Sfw4z9/11eq3+xo/wZjERz2rLA= > User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird > Content-Language: en-US > X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 251226-6, 12/26/2025), Outbound message > X-Antivirus-Status: Clean > X-Originating-IP: 130.133.4.5 > X-ZEDAT-Hint: RO > X-Mythic-Source-External: YES > X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: 68 > X-Spam-Status: No, score=6.8 > Delivered-To: usenet-uk-legal-moderated@usenet.org.uk > X-BlackCat-To: usenet-uk-legal-moderated@usenet.org.uk > X-Mythic-Originator: uid-1081-on-lynx.mythic-beasts.com > X-STUMP-Warning-4: Unfolded headers Received: Received: Received: Received: Authentication-Results: Received: DKIM-Signature: DKIM-Signature: DKIM-Signature: DKIM-Signature: > > On 26/12/2025 04:13 pm, Mark Goodge wrote: > > On Wed, 24 Dec 2025 17:19:31 +0000, JNugent wrote: > > > >> On 24/12/2025 11:52 am, Jon Ribbens wrote: > >> > >>> On 2025-12-24, Andy Burns wrote: > >>>> Jon Ribbens wrote: > >>>>> JNugent wrote: > >> > >>>>>> I am sure I read of a member of the government - female as it happens - > >>>>>> saying less than a week ago that she could not rule out delaying the > >>>>>> next General Election. > >>> > >>>>> I am sure you didn't. > >>> > >>>> It was Anna Turley being interviewed by Trevor Phillips on Sky > >>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> And in that clip did she say that "she could not rule out delaying > >>> the next General Election"? Or did she in fact not say that? > >> > >> When asked to rule it out, she would not / failed to / refused to do that. > >> > >> She could easily have ruled it out had she wished to do so. > > > > She couldn't possibly have done so, since she has absolutely no power to > > rule it out. Even if she's still in her current post when the next election > > comes round, it won't be her decision. > > > > She was asked a multi-part question by the interviewer, and utilised a > > common political trick of answering the part which enabled her to best make > > her point and simply ignoring the other part. That doesn't mean she's > > avoiding giving the "wrong" answer. It simply means that she wants the > > soundbites from the interview to be the ones she chooses, rather than > > someone else's choice. > > IOW, she avoided giving an answer to the question and thereby failed to > give an assurance that Labour will not seek to postpone a General > Election for pure party political purposes, as they are currently > seeking to do with local elections. > > > > It's clear from the interview that her focus is on justifying delays to > > local elections as well as boasting about the government's plans to reform > > the Lords. Speculating about a future general election, whatever she says, > > risks diverting attention away from the things she wanted to focus on. So > > it's only when pressed that she returns to that point, but does so by > > essentially dismissing it rather than addressing the question in detail. > > Any speculation as to why she returned to her theme the day after the > interview. trying to reassure the public that there woud be no Labour > attempt to delay a General Election for party purposes? > > > > > I also suspect that she wasn't expecting to be asked about the next general > > election (since the possibility hadn't been raised in interviews before), > > and therefore didn't have any prepared response. > > So what? > > > So, again, her choice at > > the time, rather than trying to wing it on air, was to firstly ignore and > > then, when pushed, close down the question rather than give an unprepared > > response. That, too, is normal political interview behaviour[1], and doesn't > > tell us much, if anything, about the real answer to the question. > > > > You can argue that it was a poor response, > > Her own subsequent behaviour does that. > > > and possibly she should have been > > more forceful in rebutting any suggestions that the next general election > > will be delayed. But not every politician has perfect interview technique. > > And you can't assume from a less than fully ept answer that the answer is > > the one you think it is. > > > > [1] We're actually taught that in media training: If you're asked a question > > you're not prepared for, don't improvise, just close the question down and > > try to steer the topic back to the subjects you are prepared for. > And? > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEfWu6wfyjzX88oocanSrwpvmn4x4FAmlP5K8ACgkQnSrwpvmn 4x6mhQf+MIKqMdaSQrGjH8gFSNYnqUs6A/Oz98VKpTqdK3KWHrYrIkJqtL+OKi60 6ecbvj/hIzNycHI7WLSwuxzuxOviH9H4wFbid6dcHEg36dmQAOubXM+KkFiDBiWG 47x2SueRrdkkrc0L9UdExJuRdRd5drNyy9FbeUM+YcZuwq0x/Q/pK0p2Os0QrFDv aX8DK91ACXYmrpimlqCsgW1VJC5cqy14FVWfmlVMNcIldrG3wHfyxT0DK7OxYmDa OJCQ5uIJvAFA9kUZvPOCxYeb+uK5L7SLCRoKFrncYc41RSL0wApa5XnT+PC2oLlv 4m22Z2gB6FGL17XYdhGUEPODBQgLig== =M1j1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----