Im talking about their general Brexit coverage, not the specifics of the article
Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
So are we going to find out who this "source" in the British government was? How is the UK media not even criticizing it's government for hiding in anonymity when briefing such sensitive issues? What the hell is going on in the UK?
From the language it's either Cummings or a spad reading from a Cummings script
Yeah but how can Brits accept this cowardice? "Government sources" lie about conversations the PM has with foreign leaders and the journalist don't even mention who this source is? These journalists are just as bad as Boris and Cummings.
I believe some of the spending has already been green lighted... Either way I'm not sure it would be any different from Corbyn.
What policies that have been announced are objectively right wing (let alone far right), disregarding tax reductions for middle earners that he seems to be rolling back on in favour of further spending?
Last edited:
I believe both are lying so it's not a defence to anything. But if we're judging Corbyn as left wing for a load of spending policies that are lies, surely Johnson is left wing for the same reason?
Those Tory policies are purely electioneering. It's so transparent to suggest otherwise is silly.
They won't follow through on them either, or implement them seriously.
Ha! I thought the same.
Look at their voting records over the last 10 years and you'll get your answer.
Yet only one of them has a distinguished track record in that particular discipline.
As I said, classic deflection.
Is it my imagination or is it prorogatiON again? Have I missed the discussion here?
What am I meant to be deflecting? Seriously?
There's a massive gap in the centre ground for non ideological voters and the Lib Dems are trying to fill it. Good.
He is trying to carve off pro-Brexit Labour voters with a mix of nationalism and higher spending
One is a voting intention based on some recent YouGov polls, the other are the result of the past election. It's quite a simple concept really
So are they going to constantly update the local voters on you gov polling ? Also they've removed the voting percentage of that poll and feck around with the bar chart sizes.One is a voting intention based on some recent YouGov polls, the other are the result of the past election. It's quite a simple concept really
A bit mad they are allowed to do this.
Last edited:
Of course they won't and it's not mad at all. It's standard electioneering, taking a snapshot of a positive poll and using it as part of your campaign. It's pretty common practice. This graph is based on a poll that put lib dems at 31%, Tories at 30% and Labour at 23%, for the Cities of London and Westminster constituency. The one Chuka is contesting
Er....yeah I know I literally posted the tweet saying this ? But the lib dem flyer doesn't mentioned the percentages and the bar charts aren't the same as the ones in the tweet(As I mentioned in my other post).
Also whats your feelings on big red buses ?
Last edited:
Yeah well, after you edited your post and not after I had started responding. So naturally I would explain where the graphs come from, no reason for you to get sarcy over it.
The lack of numbers and graph distortion is stretching the truth, but that's not what was mentioned in the first tweet and prompted my response. The tweet you linked was merely juxtaposing the poll results with the 2017 election results, which is pointless. I would certainly prefer they show the figures as they did in the tweet of your second post. Not a fan of stretching the truth myself, though that too is common practice in electioneering.
On what I think about pledges on big red buses... again that was stretching the truth. That was indeed close to the value bill, it just didn't allow for the abatements. They could have gone for £250m (which was the correct value) and given the ideological stance of Brexiteers which says that any money sent to the EU is money wasted that we get nothing from, I don't really think it would have made any difference.
Either way it's clear that in Westminster a vote for Labour is a vote to let the Tories in. Probably in lots of other places too.
Wat absolute bullshit, Labour got nearly 15,000 votes last time around, the Lib Dems got nearly 4300. Considering the majority of people tend to vote the same way most of the time do you even know wht kind of swing is requird for Chuka to even come second let alone win.
Chuka will hand Labour the win in Westminster because he will win votes from the Tories.
They've almost exclusively scooped up fairly right-wing leaning Labour MPs who're opposed to Corbyn though - anyone who was in Change UK can't really be deemed centre-left considering the party was literally led by an ex-Tory. The idea they're becoming a broad church indicates they're receptive to left-wing views as strong as the right-wing views espoused by some of their new ex-Tory MPs - that's not really the case though.
Labour got around 40% of the vote last time; the Lib Dems got below 10% if I remember correctly. Current polling projections have Labour losing around 15% of their vote on average and the Lib Dems generally at 2-3 times what they were at in 2017. If you apply those nationwide changes to Westminster constituency then it's absolutely in-play. Really has to be remembered that on current polling the Lib Dems are going from getting around a fifth of the vote Labour did in 2017 to almost equalling them. Although whether it's sustainable for them is another matter.
Although dodgy Lib Dem graphs can get fecked. Much as it's a funny meme and all, it's literally a form of lying to the public. If you're going to do bar graphs do them right. Otherwise the Electoral Commission etc should be getting involved.
I find this very bizarre, logic i must admit.
In what sense? You had fairly heavily pro-austerity Tories joining Labour MPs who had left the party because - for the most part - they felt it was too left-wing. People on the centre-left/left can undoubtedly work with Tory MPs on issues where cooperation is needed and beneficial, but if you're joining an actual political party that's filled with Tories, and which is led by an ex-Tory who agrees with Tory economic policy for the most part, then how can you, in any way, claim to be left-wing or centre-left? It's fairly obvious at that point you're not. Hell, Chuka and co even had the option of defecting to the Lib Dems back in February - they instead opted to join a party filled with Tory MPs, after years of being frustrated at being called Red Tories.
There has always been a further left than the Labour Party. So how can anyone who ever voted Labour claim to be left wing when they didn't join the Socialist Workers Party instead? You could reverse the question and ask why would anyone who believes the mainstream Labour Party is too right wing for them, ever join it in the first place?
We know why though, they couldn't get elected when they stood on their own policies in their own distinct party.
So they move into the mainstream Labour party, change that party and its policies beyond recognition and then claim everyone who won't vote for it is a Tory. That is a poor analysis based on party name recognition not policy or logic.
We are where we are and now and we will test whether politics has changed or not at the next election.The previous evidence and thinking is that extreme left wing policies well beyond the mainstream don't win majorities.
Things have changed and it might be that the old thinking is wrong but if Labour lose the next election it isn't because all the old Labour voters were Tories all along but just didn't know they were, it will be because the Labour Party has become the socialist workers party.
And here's voter suppression coming to the uk.
I actually have no issue with that... It's always struck me as a but strange that genuinely knowing somebody's name and address is seen as enough evidence to vote
I would hope though that it's made very clear what people need and I would actually really have hoped they could have looked more into secure online voting
The first steps along this path always sound reasonable, the problem with this is the people it excludes from voting, i.e. those with drivers licences or passports, are overwhelmingly the most vulnerable in society, minorities, the poor, the underprivalidged or the young, so basically the voters of the Tories opponents.
Apart from the fairness part of it there is no evidence whatsoever that it is required.
Yeah try being poor for a while, you might change your mind.
I'm pretty sure your in the top 10% of world earners.... Pot kettle etc
Germany Holland France Norway Sweden all seem to manage voter ID without being totalitarian unfair societies
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_Identification_laws
I personally would prefer compulsory voting with a safe internet option (government gateway possibly)... With the caveat there is a none of the above option ... Trust me when none of the above scores most then you might actually get political parties try to engage with the huge amount of people who feel detached from the process system
ID cards are free in France, how does that exclude the poor?
Assuming alongside this they remove fees for passport application/renewal and provide assistance/support in the application process for barriers that inhibit individuals in applying, school students having full in-school support/workshop days for application, massively increase passport office staff... Assuming all of that, it's still a dreadful idea.a
Great! That's the problem of the British poor lacking ID to vote in elections in Britain solved.