Westminster Politics

Jeremy Corbyn said:
"Publishing these ridiculous smears that have been refuted by Czech officials shows just how worried the media bosses are by the prospect of a Labour government.

"They're right to be. Labour will stand up to the powerful and corrupt - and take the side of the many, not the few."

Mr Corbyn said the right-wing press had become less powerful in the era of social media and "their bad habits were becoming less and less relevant".

"A free press is essential for democracy and we don't want to close it down, we want to open it up. At the moment, much of our press isn't very free at all.

"In fact it's controlled by billionaire tax exiles, who are determined to dodge paying their fair share for our vital public services.

"Instead of learning these lessons they're continuing to resort to lies and smears. Their readers - you, all of us - deserve so much better. Well, we've got news for them: change is coming."

The BBC understands the phrase "change is coming" refers to Labour's plans to go ahead with a second stage of the Leveson inquiry into press ethics as well a review of media ownership and plurality.
 
I love that Corbyn video. I am in no way a communist but these rags have really been having a laugh for a while now. The scary thing is that they can portray this video as a Trump-like attack on free speech while it is somewhat of the opposite - it is the establishment of crooks and shady newspaper owners running scared.
 
The Mail's inevitable take:

Jeremy Corbyn’s response to spy row: No answers and a chilling threat to Britain’s free Press
 
All of the current leading bunch of politicians are so unimpressive. Even setting aside the awful leaders; Davis, Johnson, Thornberry, Gardiner. All absolutely fecking terrible. I don't think it's in a 'things used to be better' misguided nostalgia either. There's nobody there with gravitas or anyone who's a serious person. Where are the front bench version of Ken Clarke or Robin Cook or Gordon Brown. I know we're supposed to dislike our politicians but I just feel sad, mainly. It's the Grease 2 of politics right now
 
Lads, could anyone explain something to me? In the 1997 general election, Labour are said to have gotten a majority of 179, the highest they have ever had. How is it 179?

The Commons had 659 seats back then. So 330 was needed for a majority. Labour won 418 seats, 88 more than 330 which was needed for a simple majority. How is it a majority of 179 then? Cheers.
 
Lads, could anyone explain something to me? In the 1997 general election, Labour are said to have gotten a majority of 179, the highest they have ever had. How is it 179?

The Commons had 659 seats back then. So 330 was needed for a majority. Labour won 418 seats, 88 more than 330 which was needed for a simple majority. How is it a majority of 179 then? Cheers.
the majority is how many more votes you have than the opposition, not n-1/2

if it was 331 votes against 228 votes (taking republicans out of the equation for ease) it's a majority of 3 not 1
 
There were 240 non Labour seats then, excluding the Speaker.
republicans who refuse their seats, speaker + deputies and anyone who doesn't vote for whatever reason (there's usually a counter from the government and one from the opposition) get removed, idk, it just worked out as + 179 votes overall, i'm too lazy to work it out
 
Lads, could anyone explain something to me? In the 1997 general election, Labour are said to have gotten a majority of 179, the highest they have ever had. How is it 179?

The Commons had 659 seats back then. So 330 was needed for a majority. Labour won 418 seats, 88 more than 330 which was needed for a simple majority. How is it a majority of 179 then? Cheers.
Double 88, add a few more for the non-voting Speaker and Sinn Fein.
 
Stormzy called our Theresa May regarding the slow response to Grenfell at the Brits last night.

Immiediately no.10 responds



:lol::lol:
 
Lads, could anyone explain something to me? In the 1997 general election, Labour are said to have gotten a majority of 179, the highest they have ever had. How is it 179?

The Commons had 659 seats back then. So 330 was needed for a majority. Labour won 418 seats, 88 more than 330 which was needed for a simple majority. How is it a majority of 179 then? Cheers.

The 179 refers to an overall majority.

Labour - 418

Conservatives - 165
Lib Dems - 48
SNP - 6
Plaid Cymru - 4
NI Parties - 18
=239

418-239 = 179 majority. So even if all the other parties tried to vote against Labour they'd still be 179 votes short.

The 2 other seats that year were the Speaker (who cannot vote) and an independent.
 


The Tory answer to Momentum there, attempting to court the youth vote by insulting Stormzy, misunderstanding socialism, and implying that rich people caring about those worse off than them is worthy of ridicule.
 


The Tory answer to Momentum there, attempting to court the youth vote by insulting Stormzy, misunderstanding socialism, and implying that rich people caring about those worse off than them is worthy of ridicule.

That account is one of the sorriest things I've seen. A pinned "join now" tweet with 8 retweets. An pro-Brexit article with a picture of IDS. Invites to this event

 
ridiculous its that close, people suck
Just seems this country has loyal and fixed electorate as far as conservatives go as well as good chunk of people/racits switching off from vanishing UKIP doesn’t help either. Even Torries pissing (literally) on the heads of those people wouldn’t change a thing as they would take it as a warm rain instead.
 
Since politicians should go in politics for the greater good and not for the interests of the few then why the tory party exist in the first place?
 
ridiculous its that close, people suck

You have to remember, that the same poll from yougov put the tories 8 points ahead, and predicted a 100+ seat majority, on the eve of the election last year.

Internal polling for both tories and labour probably tells a very different story. We wouldn;t be seeing rubbish like the spy thing (and all the tories jumping in on it) otherwise. Nor would we see labour so confident in its rebuttal.
 
The belief in a smaller state and more individual autonomy / accountability?

Seriously? Most had been sheltered in their lovely rich people/entitled world for all their lives, first at schools that barely anyone can afford, then in jobs for the boys and finally in politics which is the most sheltered jobs ever. You only have to listen to O'Brien to learn how protected bojo was in journalism and how protected he is now. I am sure that the mogg is pretty much the same. No wonder why they act and talk like 12 year olds and why they get owned by people with some knowledge of the streets. You should watch how the latter got ridiculed by ali g. Its hilarious

Most of those who vote the Tories are either from Bojo/Mogg similar backgrounds, or elderly people (I've never a country were the elderly people are so obsessed in not providing the opportunities they enjoyed to the younger generation then the UK) or people who are under the illusion that they might end up rich one day.
 
Last edited:
I'm not a Tory lover but if you really struggle with why people have differing political views maybe a discussion on politics isn't for you?

The base point for any discussion shouldn't be 'if these people really weren't evil they'd agree with me on everything'. Accepting other people see the world differently and debating those difference is what politics is about. Not being utterly befuddled by the idea that people could possibly see the world differently in the first place. It's interesting that the politicians themselves often seem perfectly relaxed with that, amicable and even friendly with each other. It's the supporters that seem to really struggle with the idea someone could disagree with you and possibly not be evil.
 
I'm not a Tory lover but if you really struggle with why people have differing political views maybe a discussion on
politics isn't for you?

The base point for any discussion shouldn't be 'if these people really weren't evil they'd agree with me on everything'. Accepting other people see the world differently and debating those difference is what politics is about. Not being utterly befuddled by the idea that people could possibly see the world differently in the first place. It's interesting that the politicians themselves often seem perfectly relaxed with that, amicable and even friendly with each other. It's the supporters that seem to really struggle with the idea someone could disagree with you and possibly not be evil.

Oh i voted and militated in various parties both in the left and in the right. Its just the tory party that i dont get. I dont see them as evil either. They care for their own. What i dont understand is how they are able to be so popular considering their clear lack of interest towards the poor/low/mid middle class

Anyway my initial post was in reaction to what some tory prick wrote about stormzy
 
Last edited:
The prat tweeted his apology at 10:30pm and then immediately went on a retweeting spree to push it down his timeline. :lol:
God what a sad little man. Anyway in case people found it hard to read the first time, Diane Abbott is here to help