So I see those recent leaks of WhatsApp messages from internal Labour staff is really going to help with party harmony, then. Although quite a few of those messages are genuinely shocking.
So I see those recent leaks of WhatsApp messages from internal Labour staff is really going to help with party harmony, then. Although quite a few of those messages are genuinely shocking.
Wow that is pretty explosive stuff. Has the figures involved denied it's true? Very tricky one for Keir to resolve. Labour needs unity.
Haven’t heard any denials so far. If I see any statements, I’ll post them here. Apparently internal staff were even hostile to Andy Burnham, Ed Miliband and (after 2015) Sadiq Khan. So it looks like this issue pre-dates Corbyn’s election.
You don’t have to agree with the politics of another human being to have sympathy with them. And you know, allegedly not that tell a journalist that they are crying in the bathroom.
I have no regard for Diane Abbott but that is horrible and unacceptable
Morning all. I have seen a claim that hydroxychloroqin may not be effective against coronavirus without zinc. Can anyone shed any light as to whether it is typically used with zinc in the UK?
Yes. HC helps absorb zinc. Good sources are meat. If you are a veggie/vegan - chick peas. Or tablets.
Repeat. None of which has any evidential link to curing coronavirus.
Sky just outed Prof John Ashton as a labour supporter and he really lost it, objecting that he was not a member of the labour party and has not been in the labour party for the last year.
He asked Sky not to politicise this !!!
Oh the irony
This is the first time I have seen Sky declare the politics of those experts they interview and it is refreshing
Feels like going down the Fox News route. Not good. Do we now have to question every expert affiliation and have Tory facts and Labour facts?
A small study of chloroquine, which is closely related to the hydroxychloroquine drug President Trump has enthusiastically promoted, was halted in Brazil after coronavirus patients taking a higher dose developed irregular heart rates that increased their risk of a potentially fatal arrhythmia.
Apropos of my previous comment, I see that the Sun's headline is reported as "Bojo's Angels," and the accompanying pictures are of Jenny McGee and Luis Pitarma - who were initially referred to as "Jenny from New Zealand" and "Luis from Portugal".
Taken, and edited from the BBC site. I wonder why the nurses names are now given and not, as initially, where they are from!
Hmmmm.
Whole PR stunt failing perhaps, though media trying their best to big it up
Sky just outed Prof John Ashton as a labour supporter and he really lost it, objecting that he was not a member of the labour party and has not been in the labour party for the last year.
He asked Sky not to politicise this !!!
Oh the irony
This is the first time I have seen Sky declare the politics of those experts they interview and it is refreshing
Sky just outed Prof John Ashton as a labour supporter and he really lost it, objecting that he was not a member of the labour party and has not been in the labour party for the last year.
He asked Sky not to politicise this !!!
Oh the irony
This is the first time I have seen Sky declare the politics of those experts they interview and it is refreshing
Feels like going down the Fox News route. Not good. Do we now have to question every expert affiliation and have Tory facts and Labour facts?
Comparing Sky to Fox news is a nonsense
It is correct for impartial broadcasting that those invited to express their opinion should be introduced on their political allegiance whether it be right, left or centre
So I see those recent leaks of WhatsApp messages from internal Labour staff is really going to help with party harmony, then. Although quite a few of those messages are genuinely shocking.
Wow that is pretty explosive stuff. Has the figures involved denied it's true? Very tricky one for Keir to resolve. Labour needs unity.
Why is any of that explosive? I think it's great.
The last thing Labour needs right now is unity. It needs a bloodbath. A total purge of the Loony Left. Like Kinnock began with that wonderful scene of Eric Heffer and Derek Hatton storming out of (the) Conference. That sent a clear signal to the British electorate that they were on the road back to electability.
So that's what's needed. An almighty civil war culminating in the absolute and utter, unequivocal, expurgation and evisceration of Momentum and all its rancid cancerous evil.
Problem is that's not what Starmer said he wanted do having the fight is awkward even though itd be for their own good. Most of the actions summarised dont look too bad, though may be worse in the detail, but a few are pretty explosive.
So Dr Fauci will be going soon then, judging by Trump’s twitter activities.
NYT:
"Dr. Fauci has become a celebrated figure among much of the public, which trusts him far more than Mr. Trump, according to polls. A Quinnipiac University survey last week found that 78 percent of Americans approved of Dr. Fauci’s handling of the crisis compared with 46 percent who approved of the president’s response. That has prompted resentment among other government officials, some of whom have privately criticized Dr. Fauci for playing to the media and not always sending consistent messages."
Morning all. I have seen a claim that hydroxychloroqin may not be effective against coronavirus without zinc. Can anyone shed any light as to whether it is typically used with zinc in the UK?
It is why we need proper studies, not untested use:
Morning all. I have seen a claim that hydroxychloroqin may not be effective against coronavirus without zinc. Can anyone shed any light as to whether it is typically used with zinc in the UK?
It is why we need proper studies, not untested use:
"And she won with more votes than President Drumpf got in 2016. I want you to think about that for a second. A Senatorial candidate, in a midterms year, got more votes than the winning Presidential candidate got two years earlier. If anyone can find another example of that, I will send along a 20 pound Amazon voucher. I expect I’ll keep my money."
I think there are several examples in 1992/1994, as Perot split the vote and therefore Clinton won some states with a very low vote:
Montana - 154.507 (Conrad Burns won it for the GOP with 218,502 in 1994).
Rhode Island - 213,299 (John Chafee won it for the GOP with 222, 856 in 1994).
Maine - 263,420 (Olympia Snowe won it for the GOP with 308.244 in 1994).
And that's assuming (though you didn't say it) you are referring to cases where the opposing party won. I believe there are more examples where popular Democratic senators won reelection in 1994 with more votes than Clinton in 1992.
Sky just outed Prof John Ashton as a labour supporter and he really lost it, objecting that he was not a member of the labour party and has not been in the labour party for the last year.
He asked Sky not to politicise this !!!
Oh the irony
This is the first time I have seen Sky declare the politics of those experts they interview and it is refreshing
What next , asking them to wear badges of shame
It is only correct that those with a political agenda are introduced accordingly
Morning all. I have seen a claim that hydroxychloroqin may not be effective against coronavirus without zinc. Can anyone shed any light as to whether it is typically used with zinc in the UK?
Yes. HC helps absorb zinc. Good sources are meat. If you are a veggie/vegan - chick peas. Or tablets.
Repeat. None of which has any evidential link to curing coronavirus.
Fake news and cures aren't helpful.
It is opinion. An opinion, by definition, is neither fake, nor news.
Sky just outed Prof John Ashton as a labour supporter and he really lost it, objecting that he was not a member of the labour party and has not been in the labour party for the last year.
He asked Sky not to politicise this !!!
Oh the irony
This is the first time I have seen Sky declare the politics of those experts they interview and it is refreshing
Feels like going down the Fox News route. Not good. Do we now have to question every expert affiliation and have Tory facts and Labour facts?
Comparing Sky to Fox news is a nonsense
It is correct for impartial broadcasting that those invited to express their opinion should be introduced on their political allegiance whether it be right, left or centre
Sky just outed Prof John Ashton as a labour supporter and he really lost it, objecting that he was not a member of the labour party and has not been in the labour party for the last year.
He asked Sky not to politicise this !!!
Oh the irony
This is the first time I have seen Sky declare the politics of those experts they interview and it is refreshing
Feels like going down the Fox News route. Not good. Do we now have to question every expert affiliation and have Tory facts and Labour facts?
It kind of depends. Whether someone is a supporter I think is irrelevant, lots of people support one party or another in a pretty loose way and support many over their lives. If someone was, by contrast, a committed activist throwing out regular insults or conspiracies about their opponent that might be relevant when giving an opinion on facts.
Good morning ladies and gentlemen. It's Easter Monday, and, in line with tradition, it’s much cooler and there’s heavy cloud. Here and ATM, anyway! On topic, one thought; given the relatively low turnout in American elections, have the Dems sorted out their machine? Turnout is key, surely. Off topic, one feature I look at on the BBC page each morning the is the headlines in the morning's papers. Has the Mail gone off this Government? Recent headlines seem to suggest so. I don't want to actually visit the paper's website, because last time I did so for more than a fleeting glance I got an invite to join the Nasty Party.
The Daily Mail are now running adverts for the Labour Party??
So I see those recent leaks of WhatsApp messages from internal Labour staff is really going to help with party harmony, then. Although quite a few of those messages are genuinely shocking.
Wow that is pretty explosive stuff. Has the figures involved denied it's true? Very tricky one for Keir to resolve. Labour needs unity.
Why is any of that explosive? I think it's great.
The last thing Labour needs right now is unity. It needs a bloodbath. A total purge of the Loony Left. Like Kinnock began with that wonderful scene of Eric Heffer and Derek Hatton storming out of (the) Conference. That sent a clear signal to the British electorate that they were on the road back to electability.
So that's what's needed. An almighty civil war culminating in the absolute and utter, unequivocal, expurgation and evisceration of Momentum and all its rancid cancerous evil.
Problem is that's not what Starmer said he wanted do having the fight is awkward even though itd be for their own good. Most of the actions summarised dont look too bad, though may be worse in the detail, but a few are pretty explosive.
Surely the point is that this is not the loony left?
Rachel Reeves asked on R4 what Labour’s strategy for coming out of lockdown.....answer came there none......
TBF, what answer could she give? Any answer might be seen as putting pressure on the government, which might not be well received. And if it was the course of action adopted and turned out to be wrong, then Labour would be unable to criticise the government without having her answer fired straight back at them.
Much better to say that they will consider supporting or opposing specific proposals on their merits when they are made.
And of course, Labour have the luxury of it not being their decision so they will only have to respond to proposals rather than come up with their own.
Shouldn’t the Opposition be an alternative government in waiting? With no policy on the most important question facing the nation? SKS is the one repeatedly asking what the government’s lockdown exit strategy is - I don’t think it’s unfair to ask the same question of him. As the BBC interviewer pointed out, Labour are getting briefings from the same experts as the government.
At this moment - no. The government is firmly in power and an election is almost certainly four years away. Meanwhile the new opposition team has literally only just been installed.
They should be asking questions and then deciding how to respond to the answers. Trying to make up policy on the hoof would be a sure way to disaster for them, and wouldn’t help the country at all.
I’m no starry eyed fan of Labour as you know, but that was a silly question from the interviewer and Reeves was quite right not to answer.
A common sense analysis! That won't stand up to scrutiny on PB!
"And she won with more votes than President Drumpf got in 2016. I want you to think about that for a second. A Senatorial candidate, in a midterms year, got more votes than the winning Presidential candidate got two years earlier. If anyone can find another example of that, I will send along a 20 pound Amazon voucher. I expect I’ll keep my money."
I think there are several examples in 1992/1994, as Perot split the vote and therefore Clinton won some states with a very low vote:
Montana - 154.507 (Conrad Burns won it for the GOP with 218,502 in 1994).
Rhode Island - 213,299 (John Chafee won it for the GOP with 222, 856 in 1994).
Maine - 263,420 (Olympia Snowe won it for the GOP with 308.244 in 1994).
And that's assuming (though you didn't say it) you are referring to cases where the opposing party won. I believe there are more examples where popular Democratic senators won reelection in 1994 with more votes than Clinton in 1992.
Oh, and Missouri - Clinton won it with 1,053,873 in 1992, John Ashcroft won it for GOP with 1,060,149 in 1994.
Sky just outed Prof John Ashton as a labour supporter and he really lost it, objecting that he was not a member of the labour party and has not been in the labour party for the last year.
He asked Sky not to politicise this !!!
Oh the irony
This is the first time I have seen Sky declare the politics of those experts they interview and it is refreshing
Feels like going down the Fox News route. Not good. Do we now have to question every expert affiliation and have Tory facts and Labour facts?
Comparing Sky to Fox news is a nonsense
It is correct for impartial broadcasting that those invited to express their opinion should be introduced on their political allegiance whether it be right, left or centre
Utter garbage, your politics would have no impact on your expert opinion on your speciality. Tories going down the Nazi route now and wanting everyone they don't like labelled or badged is not a good sight. What next correction camps to re-educate.
On topic, great article by Robert. He doesn't mention it but that's also why laying Clinton (available this morning at 21/1 for the nomination) is such a steal.
I like @edmundintokyo analysis that the most audacious candidate always wins. Maybe a feature of presidential elections in a media heavy age.
Sky just outed Prof John Ashton as a labour supporter and he really lost it, objecting that he was not a member of the labour party and has not been in the labour party for the last year.
He asked Sky not to politicise this !!!
Oh the irony
This is the first time I have seen Sky declare the politics of those experts they interview and it is refreshing
Feels like going down the Fox News route. Not good. Do we now have to question every expert affiliation and have Tory facts and Labour facts?
Comparing Sky to Fox news is a nonsense
It is correct for impartial broadcasting that those invited to express their opinion should be introduced on their political allegiance whether it be right, left or centre
Morning all. I have seen a claim that hydroxychloroqin may not be effective against coronavirus without zinc. Can anyone shed any light as to whether it is typically used with zinc in the UK?
It is why we need proper studies, not untested use:
No, HCQ may have a place, as may Zinc and Azithromycin, and half a dozen other drugs. It is the unregulated and unmonitored usage that is the problem. These drugs are not hot broth, they have potentially fatal side effects. Do they have an effectiveness that outweighs this? We need proper science to tell.
If this Labour thing had been leaked before the leadership election, the outcome may well have been different. Not that that would have necessarily been a good thing.
Sky just outed Prof John Ashton as a labour supporter and he really lost it, objecting that he was not a member of the labour party and has not been in the labour party for the last year.
He asked Sky not to politicise this !!!
Oh the irony
This is the first time I have seen Sky declare the politics of those experts they interview and it is refreshing
Feels like going down the Fox News route. Not good. Do we now have to question every expert affiliation and have Tory facts and Labour facts?
Comparing Sky to Fox news is a nonsense
It is correct for impartial broadcasting that those invited to express their opinion should be introduced on their political allegiance whether it be right, left or centre
Utter garbage, your politics would have no impact on your expert opinion on your speciality. Tories going down the Nazi route now and wanting everyone they don't like labelled or badged is not a good sight. What next correction camps to re-educate.
I'm not sure leaping immediately to the nazi comparisons shows your utter reasonableness as much as you think.
The occasions someones political affiliation should be known are pretty limited in my opinion. Being a supporter would not be relevant i dont think. Being a party activist would be I think, as activists are not people who can be trusted for any sense of objectivity. That should be pretty rare since it should be pretty easy to find speakers who are not party activists.
Sky just outed Prof John Ashton as a labour supporter and he really lost it, objecting that he was not a member of the labour party and has not been in the labour party for the last year.
He asked Sky not to politicise this !!!
Oh the irony
This is the first time I have seen Sky declare the politics of those experts they interview and it is refreshing
Feels like going down the Fox News route. Not good. Do we now have to question every expert affiliation and have Tory facts and Labour facts?
Comparing Sky to Fox news is a nonsense
It is correct for impartial broadcasting that those invited to express their opinion should be introduced on their political allegiance whether it be right, left or centre
Utter garbage, your politics would have no impact on your expert opinion on your speciality. Tories going down the Nazi route now and wanting everyone they don't like labelled or badged is not a good sight. What next correction camps to re-educate.
So a left or right leaning observer will not promote a political view to influence their attitude to politics
And would hope that this would apply to views across the political divide
Morning all. I have seen a claim that hydroxychloroqin may not be effective against coronavirus without zinc. Can anyone shed any light as to whether it is typically used with zinc in the UK?
It is why we need proper studies, not untested use:
No, HCQ may have a place, as may Zinc and Azithromycin, and half a dozen other drugs. It is the unregulated and unmonitored usage that is the problem. These drugs are not hot broth, they have potentially fatal side effects. Do they have an effectiveness that outweighs this? We need proper science to tell.
Sky just outed Prof John Ashton as a labour supporter and he really lost it, objecting that he was not a member of the labour party and has not been in the labour party for the last year.
He asked Sky not to politicise this !!!
Oh the irony
This is the first time I have seen Sky declare the politics of those experts they interview and it is refreshing
What next , asking them to wear badges of shame
It is only correct that those with a political agenda are introduced accordingly
Just because he is not a Tory does not mean he has a political agenda. Tory extremism is getting to a ridiculous stage now. Copying Trump and only allowing Tories to be experts and wanting people to be wearing badges denoting their politics etc is not healthy policy , as I said we saw the results of that in Germany previously.
Sky just outed Prof John Ashton as a labour supporter and he really lost it, objecting that he was not a member of the labour party and has not been in the labour party for the last year.
He asked Sky not to politicise this !!!
Oh the irony
This is the first time I have seen Sky declare the politics of those experts they interview and it is refreshing
Feels like going down the Fox News route. Not good. Do we now have to question every expert affiliation and have Tory facts and Labour facts?
Comparing Sky to Fox news is a nonsense
It is correct for impartial broadcasting that those invited to express their opinion should be introduced on their political allegiance whether it be right, left or centre
It really isn’t. This way madness lies.
Why are you scared of transparency
“Chris Whity and Sir Patrick Valance, thank you for coming on the programme. Before we explore the government’s policy on CV19, it is important for transparency for our audience to know who you voted for in the December 2019 election.”
It does not achieve transparency, it simply forces any issue to be looked at through a partisan lens.
Sky just outed Prof John Ashton as a labour supporter and he really lost it, objecting that he was not a member of the labour party and has not been in the labour party for the last year.
He asked Sky not to politicise this !!!
Oh the irony
This is the first time I have seen Sky declare the politics of those experts they interview and it is refreshing
Feels like going down the Fox News route. Not good. Do we now have to question every expert affiliation and have Tory facts and Labour facts?
Comparing Sky to Fox news is a nonsense
It is correct for impartial broadcasting that those invited to express their opinion should be introduced on their political allegiance whether it be right, left or centre
It really isn’t. This way madness lies.
Why are you scared of transparency
If you were a guest, how would you answer the question on your allegiance?
Sky just outed Prof John Ashton as a labour supporter and he really lost it, objecting that he was not a member of the labour party and has not been in the labour party for the last year.
He asked Sky not to politicise this !!!
Oh the irony
This is the first time I have seen Sky declare the politics of those experts they interview and it is refreshing
Feels like going down the Fox News route. Not good. Do we now have to question every expert affiliation and have Tory facts and Labour facts?
It kind of depends. Whether someone is a supporter I think is irrelevant, lots of people support one party or another in a pretty loose way and support many over their lives. If someone was, by contrast, a committed activist throwing out regular insults or conspiracies about their opponent that might be relevant when giving an opinion on facts.
On the contrary, I would like news presenters and other Scientists on the government payroll to declare their own political allegancies as well.
Agree with comments in re Ashton. Cannot remember a time when Guido was NOT introduced as a “right wing blogger”
I recall the likes of Any Questions introducing panellists by their political affiliations, before finally introducing "the well-known actress, Glenda Jackson".
Sky just outed Prof John Ashton as a labour supporter and he really lost it, objecting that he was not a member of the labour party and has not been in the labour party for the last year.
He asked Sky not to politicise this !!!
Oh the irony
This is the first time I have seen Sky declare the politics of those experts they interview and it is refreshing
Wonderful - maybe we'll get fewer anti-Tory smears masquerading as expert commentary in the media!
Sky just outed Prof John Ashton as a labour supporter and he really lost it, objecting that he was not a member of the labour party and has not been in the labour party for the last year.
He asked Sky not to politicise this !!!
Oh the irony
This is the first time I have seen Sky declare the politics of those experts they interview and it is refreshing
Feels like going down the Fox News route. Not good. Do we now have to question every expert affiliation and have Tory facts and Labour facts?
Comparing Sky to Fox news is a nonsense
It is correct for impartial broadcasting that those invited to express their opinion should be introduced on their political allegiance whether it be right, left or centre
It really isn’t. This way madness lies.
Why are you scared of transparency
“Chris Whity and Sir Patrick Valance, thank you for coming on the programme. Before we explore the government’s policy on CV19, it is important for transparency for our audience to know who you voted for in the December 2019 election.”
It does not achieve transparency, it simply forces any issue to be looked at through a partisan lens.
Utter madness.
No need to ask, they both look like closet lefties! Nonetheless a good point well made.
Sky just outed Prof John Ashton as a labour supporter and he really lost it, objecting that he was not a member of the labour party and has not been in the labour party for the last year.
He asked Sky not to politicise this !!!
Oh the irony
This is the first time I have seen Sky declare the politics of those experts they interview and it is refreshing
Feels like going down the Fox News route. Not good. Do we now have to question every expert affiliation and have Tory facts and Labour facts?
Comparing Sky to Fox news is a nonsense
It is correct for impartial broadcasting that those invited to express their opinion should be introduced on their political allegiance whether it be right, left or centre
Utter garbage, your politics would have no impact on your expert opinion on your speciality. Tories going down the Nazi route now and wanting everyone they don't like labelled or badged is not a good sight. What next correction camps to re-educate.
Demanding that the government be "completely honest" is not expressing an expert opinion.
Sky just outed Prof John Ashton as a labour supporter and he really lost it, objecting that he was not a member of the labour party and has not been in the labour party for the last year.
He asked Sky not to politicise this !!!
Oh the irony
This is the first time I have seen Sky declare the politics of those experts they interview and it is refreshing
Feels like going down the Fox News route. Not good. Do we now have to question every expert affiliation and have Tory facts and Labour facts?
Comparing Sky to Fox news is a nonsense
It is correct for impartial broadcasting that those invited to express their opinion should be introduced on their political allegiance whether it be right, left or centre
It really isn’t. This way madness lies.
Why are you scared of transparency
We can always compare news organisations, silly comment really. We can even place sky and fox on opposite ends of the same wedge.
Sky just outed Prof John Ashton as a labour supporter and he really lost it, objecting that he was not a member of the labour party and has not been in the labour party for the last year.
He asked Sky not to politicise this !!!
Oh the irony
This is the first time I have seen Sky declare the politics of those experts they interview and it is refreshing
Feels like going down the Fox News route. Not good. Do we now have to question every expert affiliation and have Tory facts and Labour facts?
Comparing Sky to Fox news is a nonsense
It is correct for impartial broadcasting that those invited to express their opinion should be introduced on their political allegiance whether it be right, left or centre
It really isn’t. This way madness lies.
Why are you scared of transparency
If you were a guest, how would you answer the question on your allegiance?
Yeah I don;t think we want to be there. But if an 'expert' has any history of activism for a polictical party, I think that should be known
Sky just outed Prof John Ashton as a labour supporter and he really lost it, objecting that he was not a member of the labour party and has not been in the labour party for the last year.
He asked Sky not to politicise this !!!
Oh the irony
This is the first time I have seen Sky declare the politics of those experts they interview and it is refreshing
Feels like going down the Fox News route. Not good. Do we now have to question every expert affiliation and have Tory facts and Labour facts?
Comparing Sky to Fox news is a nonsense
It is correct for impartial broadcasting that those invited to express their opinion should be introduced on their political allegiance whether it be right, left or centre
Utter garbage, your politics would have no impact on your expert opinion on your speciality. Tories going down the Nazi route now and wanting everyone they don't like labelled or badged is not a good sight. What next correction camps to re-educate.
I'm not sure leaping immediately to the nazi comparisons shows your utter reasonableness as much as you think.
The occasions someones political affiliation should be known are pretty limited in my opinion. Being a supporter would not be relevant i dont think. Being a party activist would be I think, as activists are not people who can be trusted for any sense of objectivity. That should be pretty rare since it should be pretty easy to find speakers who are not party activists.
Something sinister in wanting people to be badged for their political opinion. This guy is not a Labour party official. In my opinion it looks very like what happened in Germany. Interrogation by Tories before they decide whether you are suitable to speak on your area of expertise is really desperate. Have you ever heard of them having their Tory experts badged before giving a political broadcast on behalf of the Tory party.
So I see those recent leaks of WhatsApp messages from internal Labour staff is really going to help with party harmony, then. Although quite a few of those messages are genuinely shocking.
Wow that is pretty explosive stuff. Has the figures involved denied it's true? Very tricky one for Keir to resolve. Labour needs unity.
Why is any of that explosive? I think it's great.
The last thing Labour needs right now is unity. It needs a bloodbath. A total purge of the Loony Left. Like Kinnock began with that wonderful scene of Eric Heffer and Derek Hatton storming out of (the) Conference. That sent a clear signal to the British electorate that they were on the road back to electability.
So that's what's needed. An almighty civil war culminating in the absolute and utter, unequivocal, expurgation and evisceration of Momentum and all its rancid cancerous evil.
Kinnock was elected leader in October 1983. The speech in question was October 1985. Hardly the way he ‘began.’
However Starmer might be well advised to make some very public expulsions ASAP while the momentum (no pun intended) is on his side.
Problem is that's not what Starmer said he wanted do having the fight is awkward even though itd be for their own good. Most of the actions summarised dont look too bad, though may be worse in the detail, but a few are pretty explosive.
I think it is pretty explosive. Apart from the abuse of Labour MPs, it's clear that senior labour staff including campaign officials and the general secretary were hoping and working for a Tory victory.
They were hiding campaign money from the leader of the opposition. They were planning a leadership challenge against Corbyn (to be run under different rules). They were redirecting resources to help their favourite MPs.
How else might one describe Paul Staines other than hyper-partisan blogger? Perhaps if some of these Conservative hacks had actually achieved something worthwhile in life they might be invited on to speak in that capacity.
Sky just outed Prof John Ashton as a labour supporter and he really lost it, objecting that he was not a member of the labour party and has not been in the labour party for the last year.
He asked Sky not to politicise this !!!
Oh the irony
This is the first time I have seen Sky declare the politics of those experts they interview and it is refreshing
Wonderful - maybe we'll get fewer anti-Tory smears masquerading as expert commentary in the media!
Problem is that's not what Starmer said he wanted do having the fight is awkward even though itd be for their own good. Most of the actions summarised dont look too bad, though may be worse in the detail, but a few are pretty explosive.
I think it is pretty explosive. Apart from the abuse of Labour MPs, it's clear that senior labour staff including campaign officials and the general secretary were hoping and working for a Tory victory.
They were hiding campaign money from the leader of the opposition. They were planning a leadership challenge against Corbyn (to be run under different rules). They were redirecting resources to help their favourite MPs.
It sounds like the whole operation is an open sewer.
I'm finding it more amusing than I think is warranted to note that Starmer's Twitter handle has apparently been knighted at some point.
Good spot. I've reflected before I find it irritating when someones handle is used sometimes ('what a disgrace @realdonaldtrump is' just looks dumb to me) but that's an interesting take on it.
On the 'political guests' debate: I think it depends, somewhat, on context.
I have memories of Douglas Murray constantly being introduced on Question Time as the nation's only neo-conservative. Likewise, Guido's spoken of as right wing. Yet Owen Jones threw a hissyfit on the rare (only?) occasion he was described as a Labour activity*.
As long as a consistent approach is taken, that's fine.
It can also depend on the subject. If you have two top notch scientists discussing the composition of a comet then it probably doesn't matter what their political slant is...
So I see those recent leaks of WhatsApp messages from internal Labour staff is really going to help with party harmony, then. Although quite a few of those messages are genuinely shocking.
Wow that is pretty explosive stuff. Has the figures involved denied it's true? Very tricky one for Keir to resolve. Labour needs unity.
Why is any of that explosive? I think it's great.
The last thing Labour needs right now is unity. It needs a bloodbath. A total purge of the Loony Left. Like Kinnock began with that wonderful scene of Eric Heffer and Derek Hatton storming out of (the) Conference. That sent a clear signal to the British electorate that they were on the road back to electability.
So that's what's needed. An almighty civil war culminating in the absolute and utter, unequivocal, expurgation and evisceration of Momentum and all its rancid cancerous evil.
Why else do you think I have rejoined? My local branch is on Facebook community groups arguing that Labour to Tory switchers need educating in the ways of Marx and advocate a 20 hour working week and the IRA. To misquote Blazing Saddles I have rejoined the party to come riding into town whipping and whopping every living thing within an inch of its life.
This "report" is hilarious. Apparently the True Enemy of the Labour Party WAS the Labour Party - as these wazzocks said all along. The people who went on Panorama about AS were suspect, as these wazzocks said all along. And the Jeremy would have be Prime Minister of People's Hearts had it not been for the Stupidity of the Labour Party wasting money to defend West Bromwich East pointlessly from the Tories who will never ever win it.
Sky just outed Prof John Ashton as a labour supporter and he really lost it, objecting that he was not a member of the labour party and has not been in the labour party for the last year.
He asked Sky not to politicise this !!!
Oh the irony
This is the first time I have seen Sky declare the politics of those experts they interview and it is refreshing
Big G, your partisanship is becoming tiresome and dare I say it silly.
I have been given a list of dangerously strenuous (for a man of my years) DIY and gardening tasks which I have been procrastinating over on account of NHS rationing and am barely a quarter through. Time to get to it I think!
On the 'political guests' debate: I think it depends, somewhat, on context.
I have memories of Douglas Murray constantly being introduced on Question Time as the nation's only neo-conservative. Likewise, Guido's spoken of as right wing. Yet Owen Jones threw a hissyfit on the rare (only?) occasion he was described as a Labour activity*.
As long as a consistent approach is taken, that's fine.
It can also depend on the subject. If you have two top notch scientists discussing the composition of a comet then it probably doesn't matter what their political slant is...
Edited extra bit: ahem, Labour activist*.
I’m inclined to put more trust on health matters in a professor in international public health than Toby Young, serial loud mouthed boor. Yet the Sun presented them both as experts. Is that the way that the partisan right want public debate to degenerate?
Sky just outed Prof John Ashton as a labour supporter and he really lost it, objecting that he was not a member of the labour party and has not been in the labour party for the last year.
He asked Sky not to politicise this !!!
Oh the irony
This is the first time I have seen Sky declare the politics of those experts they interview and it is refreshing
Feels like going down the Fox News route. Not good. Do we now have to question every expert affiliation and have Tory facts and Labour facts?
Comparing Sky to Fox news is a nonsense
It is correct for impartial broadcasting that those invited to express their opinion should be introduced on their political allegiance whether it be right, left or centre
Utter garbage, your politics would have no impact on your expert opinion on your speciality. Tories going down the Nazi route now and wanting everyone they don't like labelled or badged is not a good sight. What next correction camps to re-educate.
Demanding that the government be "completely honest" is not expressing an expert opinion.
That sounds exactly like your average "expert opinion " to me.
How else might one describe Paul Staines other than hyper-partisan blogger? Perhaps if some of these Conservative hacks had actually achieved something worthwhile in life they might be invited on to speak in that capacity.
I dont think anyone complains he is described that way. I'd guess he would not, but I dont know that. His counterparts should expect the same.
that's kind of an irrelevance to the point about about whether people who are activists for any party should be noted as such (I think usually that would be fair) or if merely being a supporter of one side should be noted (I dont think that usually would be fair).
Just reading the introduction - I haven't got time for the whole thing - it appears as though the central argument is that the party's complaints system was dysfunctional largely due to factionalism in Labour HQ but once Jenny Formby took over in 2018 things improved.
I was hoping for the EHRC verdict. I did quite like this line.
'Dealing with this was complicated by the complacent assumption that to be in the Labour party was to be free of prejudice.'
Regarding outing political affiliations, as long as every broadcaster announces their previous party memberships ie specific current and ex Today programme presenters and BBC political editors Andrew Neil etc. And every fucking 'think tank' eg the IEA, IFS or adam smith institute etc etc are introduced as the annonymous musings of big donors and big business.
There cannot be any rational to broadcasting the past affiliations of a scientist when they are commentating on there own field unless everyone gets the same treatment even Sarah fucking Sands.
Maybe she should discuss the advice given to the government with some of her colleagues at Imperial....
As a more general point I'm amazed by the number of medical people passing judgement on this pandemic*, when many of the same medical people admit it will likely go on until the end of next year. Also many of the judgements seem to be driven by hindsight.
At this rate medics will be vying with economists for crappy forecasting and being wise after the event.
* To be fair I have heard a couple saying "nobody knows" or "it's too early to tell".
Maybe she should discuss the advice given to the government with some of her colleagues at Imperial....
No doubt the public inquiry will find that academics were divided.
Quite. And no doubt questions will be why listen to this advice rather than that advice. It will be awkward, but unless things go very bad most would accept a political decision to follow advice ascreadonsble atvtge time
How else might one describe Paul Staines other than hyper-partisan blogger? Perhaps if some of these Conservative hacks had actually achieved something worthwhile in life they might be invited on to speak in that capacity.
Just reading the introduction - I haven't got time for the whole thing - it appears as though the central argument is that the party's complaints system was dysfunctional largely due to factionalism in Labour HQ but once Jenny Formby took over in 2018 things improved.
I was hoping for the EHRC verdict. I did quite like this line.
'Dealing with this was complicated by the complacent assumption that to be in the Labour party was to be free of prejudice.'
How else might one describe Paul Staines other than hyper-partisan blogger? Perhaps if some of these Conservative hacks had actually achieved something worthwhile in life they might be invited on to speak in that capacity.
The soft-left/left bubble at the BBC sees itself as the norm. Anybody outside of that comfortable political bubble is beyond the pale - and the viewers must routinly be warned of that, in case they quietly nod and think "Fair point, well made..." at anything said by such dangerous people.
On the 'political guests' debate: I think it depends, somewhat, on context.
I have memories of Douglas Murray constantly being introduced on Question Time as the nation's only neo-conservative. Likewise, Guido's spoken of as right wing. Yet Owen Jones threw a hissyfit on the rare (only?) occasion he was described as a Labour activity*.
As long as a consistent approach is taken, that's fine.
It can also depend on the subject. If you have two top notch scientists discussing the composition of a comet then it probably doesn't matter what their political slant is...
Edited extra bit: ahem, Labour activist*.
I’m inclined to put more trust on health matters in a professor in international public health than Toby Young, serial loud mouthed boor. Yet the Sun presented them both as experts. Is that the way that the partisan right want public debate to degenerate?
Thats really a tangential issue to this debate as well (noting I do not agree with bigG about general affiliation being declared). Its pretty common apparently to have guests representing two sides who may be of wildly different expertise. Wasnt that the case with Lawson on climate change? I seem to recall criticism of the BBC in, attempting balance, presenting an imbalanced view of the arguments in such a way
Sky just outed Prof John Ashton as a labour supporter and he really lost it, objecting that he was not a member of the labour party and has not been in the labour party for the last year.
He asked Sky not to politicise this !!!
Oh the irony
This is the first time I have seen Sky declare the politics of those experts they interview and it is refreshing
What next , asking them to wear badges of shame
It is only correct that those with a political agenda are introduced accordingly
Just because he is not a Tory does not mean he has a political agenda. Tory extremism is getting to a ridiculous stage now. Copying Trump and only allowing Tories to be experts and wanting people to be wearing badges denoting their politics etc is not healthy policy , as I said we saw the results of that in Germany previously.
Malc. That is just nonsense
I want to hear balanced arguments from across the political divide but I do expect those with an agenda or are activists to be made known to their audience
Regarding outing political affiliations, as long as every broadcaster announces their previous party memberships ie specific current and ex Today programme presenters and BBC political editors Andrew Neil etc. And every fucking 'think tank' eg the IEA, IFS or adam smith institute etc etc are introduced as the annonymous musings of big donors and big business.
There cannot be any rational to broadcasting the past affiliations of a scientist when they are commentating on there own field unless everyone gets the same treatment even Sarah fucking Sands.
I would strongly advise against sharing that Labour report. It contains the unredacted details of dozens of victims of alleged racism and is in clear breach of data protection laws. Sharing it could expose this site to legal action.
How else might one describe Paul Staines other than hyper-partisan blogger? Perhaps if some of these Conservative hacks had actually achieved something worthwhile in life they might be invited on to speak in that capacity.
The soft-left/left bubble at the BBC sees itself as the norm. Anybody outside of that comfortable political bubble is beyond the pale - and the viewers must routinly be warned of that, in case they quietly nod and think "Fair point, well made..." at anything said by such dangerous people.
Whereas of course you, are the true norm and not in a bubble of your own like the rest of us.
Sky just outed Prof John Ashton as a labour supporter and he really lost it, objecting that he was not a member of the labour party and has not been in the labour party for the last year.
He asked Sky not to politicise this !!!
Oh the irony
This is the first time I have seen Sky declare the politics of those experts they interview and it is refreshing
Feels like going down the Fox News route. Not good. Do we now have to question every expert affiliation and have Tory facts and Labour facts?
Comparing Sky to Fox news is a nonsense
It is correct for impartial broadcasting that those invited to express their opinion should be introduced on their political allegiance whether it be right, left or centre
It really isn’t. This way madness lies.
Why are you scared of transparency
If you were a guest, how would you answer the question on your allegiance?
How else might one describe Paul Staines other than hyper-partisan blogger? Perhaps if some of these Conservative hacks had actually achieved something worthwhile in life they might be invited on to speak in that capacity.
The soft-left/left bubble at the BBC sees itself as the norm. Anybody outside of that comfortable political bubble is beyond the pale - and the viewers must routinly be warned of that, in case they quietly nod and think "Fair point, well made..." at anything said by such dangerous people.
Whereas of course you, are the true norm and not in a bubble of your own like the rest of us.
Correct
But you don't get fined if you read my views without the appropriate expensive paperwork.
How else might one describe Paul Staines other than hyper-partisan blogger? Perhaps if some of these Conservative hacks had actually achieved something worthwhile in life they might be invited on to speak in that capacity.
The soft-left/left bubble at the BBC sees itself as the norm. Anybody outside of that comfortable political bubble is beyond the pale - and the viewers must routinly be warned of that, in case they quietly nod and think "Fair point, well made..." at anything said by such dangerous people.
Exactly. If it were made law that all commentators appearing on the media must have their political affiliations explicitly labelled, the Left would shit themselves at the exposure of their biggest secret and greatest electoral asset - that most of the voices heard on the media either vote left or have connections to left-wing parties.
Sky just outed Prof John Ashton as a labour supporter and he really lost it, objecting that he was not a member of the labour party and has not been in the labour party for the last year.
He asked Sky not to politicise this !!!
Oh the irony
This is the first time I have seen Sky declare the politics of those experts they interview and it is refreshing
What next , asking them to wear badges of shame
It is only correct that those with a political agenda are introduced accordingly
Just because he is not a Tory does not mean he has a political agenda. Tory extremism is getting to a ridiculous stage now. Copying Trump and only allowing Tories to be experts and wanting people to be wearing badges denoting their politics etc is not healthy policy , as I said we saw the results of that in Germany previously.
Malc. That is just nonsense
I want to hear balanced arguments from across the political divide but I do expect those with an agenda or are activists to be made known to their audience
And who decides who has an agenda or is an activist? You? The government? The people’s truth commission?
Just reading the introduction - I haven't got time for the whole thing - it appears as though the central argument is that the party's complaints system was dysfunctional largely due to factionalism in Labour HQ but once Jenny Formby took over in 2018 things improved.
I was hoping for the EHRC verdict. I did quite like this line.
'Dealing with this was complicated by the complacent assumption that to be in the Labour party was to be free of prejudice.'
Ah yes, the 'I've been a campaigner on x for decades, that makes me a saint' defence.
How else might one describe Paul Staines other than hyper-partisan blogger? Perhaps if some of these Conservative hacks had actually achieved something worthwhile in life they might be invited on to speak in that capacity.
The soft-left/left bubble at the BBC sees itself as the norm. Anybody outside of that comfortable political bubble is beyond the pale - and the viewers must routinly be warned of that, in case they quietly nod and think "Fair point, well made..." at anything said by such dangerous people.
How is it, that many of these left wing pro- Labour BBC journalists leave their posts at the BBC to become Conservative SPADS (Harri, Oliver, Gilligan) or become Tory Party parliamentary candidates and even MPs?
How else might one describe Paul Staines other than hyper-partisan blogger? Perhaps if some of these Conservative hacks had actually achieved something worthwhile in life they might be invited on to speak in that capacity.
The soft-left/left bubble at the BBC sees itself as the norm. Anybody outside of that comfortable political bubble is beyond the pale - and the viewers must routinly be warned of that, in case they quietly nod and think "Fair point, well made..." at anything said by such dangerous people.
You ducked my question. Paul Staines has no interest in the truth, only in being a fully on-message flying monkey for this government and Leave. Inconvenient stories are ignored, non-stories are twisted into hate-clicks.
It’s noteworthy how lacking in useful achievements the far right commentariat is. If they want to be introduced for their specialist knowledge, they need to get some first. Till then, they’ll continue to be introduced as the cheerleaders for basement-dwelling incels and affluent reactionaries that they are.
Sky just outed Prof John Ashton as a labour supporter and he really lost it, objecting that he was not a member of the labour party and has not been in the labour party for the last year.
He asked Sky not to politicise this !!!
Oh the irony
This is the first time I have seen Sky declare the politics of those experts they interview and it is refreshing
What next , asking them to wear badges of shame
It is only correct that those with a political agenda are introduced accordingly
Just because he is not a Tory does not mean he has a political agenda. Tory extremism is getting to a ridiculous stage now. Copying Trump and only allowing Tories to be experts and wanting people to be wearing badges denoting their politics etc is not healthy policy , as I said we saw the results of that in Germany previously.
Malc. That is just nonsense
I want to hear balanced arguments from across the political divide but I do expect those with an agenda or are activists to be made known to their audience
And who decides who has an agenda or is an activist? You? The government? The people’s truth commission?
Ever heard of the 'Register of Members' Interests'? It would be like that, but with political affiliations, both professional and personal.
Comments
Or is Trump worried about the shale states?
Fake news and cures aren't helpful.
A small study of chloroquine, which is closely related to the hydroxychloroquine drug President Trump has enthusiastically promoted, was halted in Brazil after coronavirus patients taking a higher dose developed irregular heart rates that increased their risk of a potentially fatal arrhythmia.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/13/world/coronavirus-news.html?action=click&pgtype=Article&state=default&module=styln-coronavirus-markets&variant=show®ion=TOP_BANNER&context=storyline_menu#link-3a4329a6
It is correct for impartial broadcasting that those invited to express their opinion should be introduced on their political allegiance whether it be right, left or centre
"Dr. Fauci has become a celebrated figure among much of the public, which trusts him far more than Mr. Trump, according to polls. A Quinnipiac University survey last week found that 78 percent of Americans approved of Dr. Fauci’s handling of the crisis compared with 46 percent who approved of the president’s response. That has prompted resentment among other government officials, some of whom have privately criticized Dr. Fauci for playing to the media and not always sending consistent messages."
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/12/health/chloroquine-coronavirus-trump.html#click=https://t.co/rkQTrsxws6
I think there are several examples in 1992/1994, as Perot split the vote and therefore Clinton won some states with a very low vote:
Montana - 154.507 (Conrad Burns won it for the GOP with 218,502 in 1994).
Rhode Island - 213,299 (John Chafee won it for the GOP with 222, 856 in 1994).
Maine - 263,420 (Olympia Snowe won it for the GOP with 308.244 in 1994).
And that's assuming (though you didn't say it) you are referring to cases where the opposing party won. I believe there are more examples where popular Democratic senators won reelection in 1994 with more votes than Clinton in 1992.
https://novaramedia.com/2020/04/12/its-going-to-be-a-long-night-how-members-of-labours-senior-management-campaigned-to-lose/
https://youtu.be/NIpR56oEQhs
I like @edmundintokyo analysis that the most audacious candidate always wins. Maybe a feature of presidential elections in a media heavy age.
Agree with comments in re Ashton. Cannot remember a time when Guido was NOT introduced as a “right wing blogger”
https://twitter.com/BeachPretzel2/status/1248381781306269702?s=09
The occasions someones political affiliation should be known are pretty limited in my opinion. Being a supporter would not be relevant i dont think. Being a party activist would be I think, as activists are not people who can be trusted for any sense of objectivity. That should be pretty rare since it should be pretty easy to find speakers who are not party activists.
And would hope that this would apply to views across the political divide
It is called transparency
It does not achieve transparency, it simply forces any issue to be looked at through a partisan lens.
Utter madness.
Well, one can dream.
It's going to be a long long summer.
Have you ever heard of them having their Tory experts badged before giving a political broadcast on behalf of the Tory party.
However Starmer might be well advised to make some very public expulsions ASAP while the momentum (no pun intended) is on his side.
Apart from the abuse of Labour MPs, it's clear that senior labour staff including campaign officials and the general secretary were hoping and working for a Tory victory.
They were hiding campaign money from the leader of the opposition. They were planning a leadership challenge against Corbyn (to be run under different rules). They were redirecting resources to help their favourite MPs.
https://twitter.com/profhelenward/status/1249477624361033736?s=20
Maybe she should discuss the advice given to the government with some of her colleagues at Imperial....
I have memories of Douglas Murray constantly being introduced on Question Time as the nation's only neo-conservative. Likewise, Guido's spoken of as right wing. Yet Owen Jones threw a hissyfit on the rare (only?) occasion he was described as a Labour activity*.
As long as a consistent approach is taken, that's fine.
It can also depend on the subject. If you have two top notch scientists discussing the composition of a comet then it probably doesn't matter what their political slant is...
Edited extra bit: ahem, Labour activist*.
This "report" is hilarious. Apparently the True Enemy of the Labour Party WAS the Labour Party - as these wazzocks said all along. The people who went on Panorama about AS were suspect, as these wazzocks said all along. And the Jeremy would have be Prime Minister of People's Hearts had it not been for the Stupidity of the Labour Party wasting money to defend West Bromwich East pointlessly from the Tories who will never ever win it.
Its war. I'm going to enjoy it.
I have been given a list of dangerously strenuous (for a man of my years) DIY and gardening tasks which I have been procrastinating over on account of NHS rationing and am barely a quarter through. Time to get to it I think!
that's kind of an irrelevance to the point about about whether people who are activists for any party should be noted as such (I think usually that would be fair) or if merely being a supporter of one side should be noted (I dont think that usually would be fair).
https://twitter.com/profhelenward/status/1245485726168420355?s=20
She may indeed have a point, but blaming "politicians" may not be the most constructive way of making it.
I was hoping for the EHRC verdict. I did quite like this line.
'Dealing with this was complicated by the complacent assumption that to be in the Labour party was to be free of prejudice.'
https://www.dropbox.com/s/eq5c3qnd375rj69/The Work of the Labour Party’s Governance and Legal Unit in Relation to Antisemitism, 2014 - 2019 (2020).pdf?dl=0
Regarding outing political affiliations, as long as every broadcaster announces their previous party memberships ie specific current and ex Today programme presenters and BBC political editors Andrew Neil etc. And every fucking 'think tank' eg the IEA, IFS or adam smith institute etc etc are introduced as the annonymous musings of big donors and big business.
There cannot be any rational to broadcasting the past affiliations of a scientist when they are commentating on there own field unless everyone gets the same treatment even Sarah fucking Sands.
At this rate medics will be vying with economists for crappy forecasting and being wise after the event.
* To be fair I have heard a couple saying "nobody knows" or "it's too early to tell".
(*’raging Blairite Labour activist and blogger Hopi Sen,’ if people want a full description.)
https://twitter.com/profhelenward/status/1178948831683190784
I want to hear balanced arguments from across the political divide but I do expect those with an agenda or are activists to be made known to their audience
It's also why I never suggested Toby Young ought to be treated as an authority as regards health.
A level of consistency would be fair.
The former would be... mental.
But you don't get fined if you read my views without the appropriate expensive paperwork.
It’s noteworthy how lacking in useful achievements the far right commentariat is. If they want to be introduced for their specialist knowledge, they need to get some first. Till then, they’ll continue to be introduced as the cheerleaders for basement-dwelling incels and affluent reactionaries that they are.
It would be utterly _fascinating_