Add to that its clear ULEZ wasn't the electoral minefield everyone thought it would be. Turns out people like having cleaner air in their neighbourhoods and around their workplaces and green spaces.
Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
The Tories did this in mayoral elections because FPTP gives them a better chance of winning. That's literally the only reason.
So is it nationwide, not just in London?
Yes, they changed it under the Elections Act 2022, along with photo ID. They know any variant of PR will lead to them losing.
Cry more.
Thanks; sounds like something a sensible Labour government would prioritise putting right as soon as they made it back into power, but...
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
She really can’t hid her bias.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
She needs to resign.
Sound like it might be good news.
So Labour shit on Muslim voters, likening them to Hamas, to blame for them losing an election they've won anyway? 
That's about the size of it.So Labour shit on Muslim voters, likening them to Hamas, to blame for them losing an election they've won anyway?
Doubly so if they win the West Midlands mayoralty.
That just sounds like she's trying to drum up traffic for her podcast.
Susan can now feck off back into the abyss.
London not even close.
Thankfully what these elections show is I can safely vote for greens in the general and it won't have any effect on the goal of getting the Tories out.
No, I have no choice but vote Labour though. It's a wasted vote because Tories will win my seat but the only opposition is Labour, and if it's comes down to 1 or 2 votes me voting for anybody but Labour will get me a Tory mp.
I don't think anyone authorised to speak for Labour has said anything like that?
No I think that the BBC should have named and shamed the person who said that if it was true. I don't trust the BBC.
He's the Reg Holdsworth lookalike on the party's NEC. Same fella who compared the councillors leaving the party to Labour 'shaking off the fleas'.
The fact they're not telling you who it is, is so you can't find out that they're still representing the party tomorrow, next week, next month and next year.
Fair enough, don't you think there is an issue with journalists giving up sources if those sources say something that is objectionable? When do you think it's ok for a journalist to reveal a source, and wouldn't that have an overall impact on a liberal society?
Who do the BBC need to give up the source? The Starmer Party clearly know who said it.
They could name them now, but then we'd quickly find out the idea that they're not welcome in the party is a complete pile of horseshit.
That's okay for Labour, but the BBC should be outing him. Yes, the shaking the fleas was abhorrent. He should be gone already.
He's the Reg Holdsworth lookalike on the party's NEC. Same fella who compared the councillors leaving the party to Labour 'shaking off the fleas'.
The fact they're not telling you who it is, is so you can't find out that they're still representing the party tomorrow, next week, next month and next year.
Why should they? He's Labour's problem. They clearly know who said it.
If a political figure says something that objectional they should be saying who it is. Protecting a racist just because they are a source is not acceptable.
I find stuff like this fascinating. It's so open to corruption. My "senior labour source" said x racist thing. Can't tell you who it was sorry.
For the record I am not saying that's what has happened here or that people should have to give up sources, but its so open to just completely making stuff like this up.
For the record I am not saying that's what has happened here or that people should have to give up sources, but its so open to just completely making stuff like this up.
Even the Starmer Party isn't pretending it's a made up quote. Why are you?
It was said. The guy who said it sits on the party's NEC and faced no punishment when he compared councillors leaving the party over the leader being a war crimes apologist to fleas.
I agree. Name and shame or it's BS.
For the record I'm not a big Starmer fan.
I think that the BBC is so far right that it's not an independent source.
It would have been nice for Keir Starmer to come out and issue a public statement denouncing the Labour spokesman, pledging to remove them from the party, and to make clear these views are unacceptable in the party.
You know, like he has done when someone said something anti-Semitic.
You know, like he has done when someone said something anti-Semitic.
Has anyone got anything to indicate it is someone who was speaking on behalf of Labour with the approval of upper echelons of the party?
What was the official Labour line on what was said?
Did you just get half way through my post and give up or can you just not read.
It's a response from a Labour MP for the area.
A bunch of MPs have said the person should be kicked out of the party, but in such a way that doesn't involve naming them - so we can't find out when they inevitably not only remain within the party but remain sat on its NEC. Luckily the media have already grown bored of it, like they did when they were comparing councillors to fleas, so no harm done. The Guardian were even editing the problematic bit out of the quote when using it yesterday afternoon.
'Here's how the BBC would make it up, but I don't think it happened here. But if it was made up, which it isn't, this is how they'd do it. Not that I'm saying they have, but this is how they could. Also, here's their motive, for something I'm not saying they've done'
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Anyone calling Laura Kuenssberg biased in favour of the Tories is clearly a sexist who hates women being in positions of power.
Oh sorry, we stopped that line in January 2020. Now it's merely a demonstrable fact that everyone should be able to notice.
Oh sorry, we stopped that line in January 2020. Now it's merely a demonstrable fact that everyone should be able to notice.
Ok you've lost your mind.
Ok, it is a terrible statement and shouldn't have been said, but what level of proof do you think it's appropriate to have before naming/taking action against an individual? If this quote was given on a confidential basis to a journalist then you/the party may be pretty certain who said it but where is the evidence beyond feelings if the journalist doesn't name the source and the source doesn't come forward?
Criticism of the journalist for not naming the source may be valid, but overall I think it's better to live in a society where journalists will protect their sources as I think that freedom of information is beneficial on balance even if it can at times seem unfair/frustrating.
That's all well and good if the source is somebody who is informing the journalist about someone who is committing a crime(Racism), but if the source is the racist they shouldn't be protected.