I saw this on twitter with somebody replying: "So the real question is, would Corbyn support a Swinson government?"
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.
I saw this on twitter with somebody replying: "So the real question is, would Corbyn support a Swinson government?"
You are aware he's found himself getting targeted by a considerable number of racists, right? Do you think he'd have received this much vitriol of his quote hadn't been frame tweeted? Was that absolutely necessary to conveying the story?
Hopefully he won't support that lying scumbag who is responsible for the suffering of so many poor and disabled people and would do it again in a heartbeat.I saw this on twitter with somebody replying: "So the real question is, would Corbyn support a Swinson government?"
A bit harsh on Swinson.
It's true though isn't it. She helped UC get pushed through and she supported austerity and makes no apologies for it so we can assume she'd do it again.
I actually thought you were referring to Johnson.
She's an unpleasant person though, I agree. There isn't much she wouldn't do to further her career.
Then you prefer a hard-right Tory govt in place and quasi-fascism along with no-deal Brexit?
Not my words by the way, the words of Labour supporters in here who feel that every vote for LibDems is essentially a vote for a Tory govt.
Wouldn't it be funny if the shoe was on the other foot?
I mean everyone already agreed that Johnson is scum. Swinson has gotten away with a lot.
Quoting his own words on why he confronted the PM was absolutely necessary in covering the story. Of course it was. That’s the why in how who what. To not use his own words, but to have speculated, would have been the scandal.
And I’m sorry he’s been targeted. But the journalists first responsibility is to get the facts out.
I cannot believe your line is she should not have reported his publicly stated reasons in his own words, for fear of what people might say. That doesn’t sound like the actions of a journalist does it?
Last edited:
I'd prefer lib Dems to Tories but they aren't much better.
It's not funny choosing between 2 different types of scum, no.
She can quite reasonably report his words without directly linking to his Twitter account.
Which is exactly why we don't need PR.
I'd rather a populist right-wing party get solid representation in parliament under a PR system than run the risk of them getting a majority with 35% of the vote.
Because people’s votes shouldn’t count? I hate Farage with an absolute passion, but I hate the idea of his supporters being denied a voice even more.
He confronted the PM because he’s not satisfied with the service of his daughter has been getting from the NHS. He didn’t mention that his views are linked to being a labour activist. Why is this the story? Please explain.
Also the PM lied again yesterday. Why is that not the core story being reported.
Why does Kluenssberg not divulge the political leanings of every single person she writes about or interviews? Why not?
Kluenssberg issued 3 tweets on a story about the PM visiting a hospital, chronic NHS underfunding and him making a barefaced lie (again) that press were not present. 2 out of 3 tweets were about a the identity and political persuasion of a member of public talking to the PM. That’s absurd overload. I dont remember her revealing similar information when people shouted at BJ in Yorkshire last week? Again why not?
None of the above sounds like the actions of an impartial journalist to me.
It’s clear that unlike Mr Omer, your opinion is polluted because of your political persuasions.
Last edited:
That’s silly. His twitter account is the primary source.
Look what UKIP has become, personally I don't want to risk 90 proper fascists in the House.
But FPTP doesn't stop those fascists from getting in - it just means that when they do become popular they're able to establish majorities with a much lower percentage of the national vote. Under a PR system a hard right-wing party would need around 50% of the vote to exercise absolute power. That's a threshold parties almost never meet in functioning democracies.
The story is a man confronted the PM. He makes allegations. An obvious question is, who is he? What are the allegations? Why is he making them? His activism is *a* story, but it's not *the* story.
Because this was a person confronting the PM on national TV. Who is he? He's an unhappy dad. And he's a labour activist. For some people, that's noteworthy and flavoursome detail given it's a Tory PM involved. It's not centrally important though. But it is reasonable to mention it.
My opinion is she was doing what journalists do, and there was nothing particularly out of ordinary in any of it. But for people who are ignorant about what journalists do, and how they do it, and who are already predisposed to thinking the worst of individuals concerned, for political/tribal reasons, then I can see why they think they way they do.
Last edited:
Nope, you've not answered any question properly or specifically, and instead hide behind your carte blanche view that 'its journalistic', but without any justification.
I'll ask again, why did Kuenssberg make this gentleman's political leaning the central story?
Please prove this gentleman's political leanings inform his views on recent direct experience of NHS.
Why does Kuenssberg not challenge the PM on making bare faced lies?
Why are there over 100,000 complaints via social media less than 12 hours of the event? Are all of them also 'ignorant' like I also must be?
Are you the only one able to overcome 'political/tribal' reasons and possess wisdom and objectivity to see such? If so, what qualifies you to be so?
Why didn't Kuenssberg reveal similar information when people shouted at BJ in Yorkshire last week?
How does Kuenssberg's tweet fall within BBC's own code of conduct on use of social media?
Specific and factual answers please.
Last edited:
Revoke seems quite popular.
With gerrymandering that will probably translate to:
Conservatives: 290
Brexit: 40
Labour: 220
Lib Dems: 60
Others: 40
I certainly have given my answers on this and other threads and taken a lot of grief despite everyone's ludicrous groupthink. So let's not accuse anyone of "hiding behind" anything.
FFS I have answered this. Because finding out who a central figure is, within a news story, is what journalists do. Nor am I aware she did make it "the central story". When I google his name, I see lots of stuff about him confronting Johnson. That is the central story. His political leanings are a footnote to the story, important to some, unimportant to others. But it is a valid detail. Finding out who a central figure is, in a news event, is normal. So normal, even the guy involved agrees she was just doing her job.
Sorry, should I not quite him? Whoops.
Don't know, ask her.
Because people don't know how journalists work, or are happy to have some tribal fun, or don't trust her, and interpret her actions through the lens of their own experiences of social media, maybe?
No, I've read many many journalists today saying they can't see what she's done wrong, because they saw her doing her job and recognise that. What qualifies me? Whatever, man. Accept my argument or don't, who fecking cares.
You'll have to ask her. But I expect this was because it was a direct confrontation, in emotional circumstances and there was a single protagonist in the story.
I dont work for the fecking Beeb. Google that yourself. Or accept the BBC also don't think she has a case to answer and move on.
I really, really doubt it's possible for Tories to get 290 seats and TBP to get 40 (simultaneously). They're basically on the same Brexit ticket and splitting the vote.
TBP has the same share of the popular vote (12-15%) as UKIP had in its heyday. They still got 0 seats. From that to 40 seats is a huge leap for mankind.
Last edited:
So no answers except hiding behind your echo chamber carte blanche of 'She's a journo'. Thought so.
You should have just admitted that in first place and we'd have avoided this to and fro.
It was more of a joke about the gerrymandering than an accurate guesstimate. I couldn't being to actually predict how it's going to play out, I don't think it's even possible to predict at this stage with the potential for voter movement in all directions.
I think the most dangerous movement is going to be long time Labour voters who could never vote Tory but could protest vote for The Brexit Party in a one off election.
I think the opposite of those voters, long time Conservatives who are remainers are not only fewer in number but also more likely to stick with the Tories than vote for Lib Dem out of fear that it could give Corbyn a route in. My mother (a socially caring, progressive thinking and entirely warm and accepting person to all creeds, cultures and persuasions) is one of these people. Myself along with my two brothers have tried to get through to her on a number of occasions but she's tribal out of love and respect for my Granddad who is also a lifelong conservative and Telegraph reader. Both of them, sadly, think they are supporting a very different Conservative party to what they actually are. They still think of it as the party of business and stability and that it's the only party that can ensure the economy will be kept in great shape and that that is how the public will be best looked after. They're both completely ignorant to the fact that this Tory party ensures the corporations and bankers are looked after and frankly feck everyone else.
“Why did she do it?”
It’s in her job description.
“No but why did she did she do it really”
Because it’s her job decription.
“But is it really her job description.”
Lots of people with the same job description think it is.
“But that’s wrong.”
The person at the centre of the event doesn’t think so. And her boss does think so.
Not really sure what else there is to say.
“Why did she do it?”
It’s in her job description.
“No but why did she did she do it really”
Because it’s her job description.
“But is it really her job description.”
Lots of people with the same job description think it is.
“But that’s wrong.”
The person at the centre of the event doesn’t think so. And her boss doesn’t think so.
Not really sure what else there is to say.
Won’t bother even correcting because you’re clearly blinded on this subject.
just admit your weird ‘Kuenssberg is a journo and can do whatever she wants’ bias in the first place. More transparent.
Never said that. If that’s what you think I said, your reading comprehension is the problem not my argument.
Can’t win through debate so resort to personal slur in attempt to discredit. I see you also follow Kuenssberg‘s style in said tweets very closely.
PS: posting the same post twice doesn’t make it any more valid.
There you go again, jumping to conclusions. I’m actually on the train with a dodgy 4G connection... and I’m pretty sure I’m not Laura Kuenssberg.
I’m also not obliged to argue your straw men points and to be honest we’ve probably exhausted this argument now.
Last edited:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-49755720
I've had one of these times before even though I pay for a NHS prescription card.
I've had one of these times before even though I pay for a NHS prescription card.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49763550
Tory party members suspended over islamophobia after a BBC investigation.
Tory party members suspended over islamophobia after a BBC investigation.
They discussed the conversation between BJ and Mr Omer for 10 mins last night on Question Time and his political affiliation didn’t come up once. But yeah, Kuenssberg is not biased at all.
Anyways it’s all moot as Kuenssberg's been exposed and her credibility is gone. She’s now a lame duck.
As several other have noted in this thread, the truth is you wish Kuenssberg was looking at you like this.
Yeah - that’s also my last post to you on this subject
Last edited:
Weirdo.
******* Harman urged to withdraw from Commons Speaker race by local party members
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49769007
I would have thought getting in a Speaker who is not a BoJo/Cummings stooge and stands up to their antics would be good for our democracy and by extension the country in general. Probably the Labour cause as well. What are these local party dudes playing at? That's like putting Peckham before party and country. Just as I praised Peckham in the thread about nice places in the UK, too.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49769007
I would have thought getting in a Speaker who is not a BoJo/Cummings stooge and stands up to their antics would be good for our democracy and by extension the country in general. Probably the Labour cause as well. What are these local party dudes playing at? That's like putting Peckham before party and country. Just as I praised Peckham in the thread about nice places in the UK, too.
How does it work for constituency issues if the MP is the speaker anyway? Do they still do surgeries?
Yes.