Undefined discussion subject.

kle4 said:

TheJezziah said:

kle4 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TheJezziah said:

Pagan2 said:

TheJezziah said:

Endillion said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Pagan2 said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

TheJezziah said:

Explain the logic of Labour losing in the groups most opposed to racism (young and minorities)

If the centrists and right wing fairly tale about Corbyn being racist and Starmer being anti racist were true the opposite would happen.

Starmer seems most popular (comparatively to Corbyn) among groups most in favour of racism (older white people) the same groups were Corbyn is least popular.

I know this might be hard to hear but is it possible it is you that is wrong rather than the children Mr Skinner?

The better starting point is not to be racist because its wrong. Too many of your fellow Corbynite activists - and Corbyn himself - cannot pass this test due to being usually passive but sometimes active anti-semites.

Once you've got this "believing in something cos its right" thing down, the next barrier is not ramming your standards down other people's throats. You may be right and the other person wrong, but sneering / shouting won't change their view in your direction. Quite the opposite in fact.

Finally, don't be a screaming hypocrite. Diane Abbott was on the receiving end of some horrendous racist abuse. She was also on the end of a lot of abuse because she is a shit politician that was willfully miscategorised as racist. At the same time Luciana Berger was also on the end of some horrendous racist abuse - with much of it coming from Labour members who then insisted it wasn't racist.

Diane Abbott is an interesting one to compare with Israel.

If you're attacking Abbott/Israel alone then that seems to be racism.

If you're attacking Abbott along with Rebecca Wrong Daily, Laura Pillock, the Jezziah and the rest of them - then that's not racist.

Wrong-Daily is white. Pillock is white. Berger is BAME. Abbott is BAME. My point was that in large parts of Labour there is a hierarchy of racism where as Baddiel puts it so neatly: Jews Don't Count.

The party promoted Anas Sarwar as the first BAME leader of a political party. Scottish Labour isn't a political party, but Sarwar isn't even the first BAME Labour leader - Ed Milliband doesn't count apparently.

Because to recognise millibrand as bame they wouldn't be able to claim that even for him as Disraeli would be the first Bame leader of a political party and incidentally prime minister

Exactly. I stopped with Ed M and didn't mention Howard or the others because they weren't Labour.

This is the Labour Party. Who claims to be anti-racist. And who still has a massive bind spot when it comes to anti-semitism.

I would say "still" is unfair, given that the start of the problem can be dated precisely to September 2015.

Anyway, using hatred of Starmer by Corbynista fanboys as a crude proxy for whether he's addressing the issue, ten minutes of scanning this forum today has made me quite optimistic.

Weird given people kept going back before that time (whether they were looking for left wing or centrist anti semitism)

I guess all the anti semitism people used as a weapon against Corbyn (or centrists) that appeared before that date was part of Corbyn's evil racist plan were he went back in time and planted racist comments that seem as if they existed before Corbyn won the leadership but clever older white men with large bank accounts saw through this...

Young people and minorities haven't got this kind of magic perception which is why they can't see that Corbyn is secretly a time travelling racist.

Please don't tar young people with your brush, most are sane and a great number of them also saw through corbyn and didnt vote for him 71% in fact

Without young people Corbyn was buried, the old voted against him the young voted for him.

Vast numbers of people as always didn't vote but there is a reason Labour did better among the young.

Corbyn is the first political leader the younger generation has had.

First?

What about Ed Miliband? Nick Clegg? Tony Blair?

Every "younger generation" has always had a leader or leaders politically. The only way to define Corbyn as the first is simply by wiping out any that come before him, in which case Starmer or A N Other could be a first next time.

I've never understood why I'm supposed to think someone is greater because they had more of the young vote, as though its morally worth more.

I criticise the grey vote bribes we get and the age polarisation of recent times is a worry, but we overdo the 'please think of the children(and young people)' stuff - same reason people love youthful campaigners.

I'll never understand people criticising something without reading it, what is the point?

I was on about younger people being less racist and them being the ones who voted for Corbyn (in relatively greater numbers)

Was it really too difficult for you to go back and read the context in which is was used?

Or are my posts just useful staging posts for you to have a self righteous whine without actually reading them?

In future please read the context in which I am saying something or don't talk about my posts. Nothing worse than someone being self righteous when they don't even know what they are talking about.

You need to calm the f*ck down, take your own advice and read what I wrote.

Your post and the one which followed it led me to reflect on a tangential point of my own. It was not a criticism of you or your post and did not say as much.

Why should not one person's thoughts serve as staging for another, separate point by another? I welcomed the discussion and it led me to think about something related but different.

So f*ck you. Amazing how you just personified the very point you wanted to criticise about self righteousness.

Not everything is about you. Nor do you own a discussion or a reply to a post which was not even yours. Just because it was in a thread with yours didn't make it a criticism of you.

So vain.

dixiedean said:

kinabalu said:

ping said:

Assuming the polls are true - and labour is losing significant votes in Hartlepool, doing pretty badly in the West Midlands, but ~level pegging overall, WHERE are they piling up votes?

I don’t get it.

Has anyone dug into the subsamples?

I don't think the Tories have a single voter left around my way. So that's part of it. Hopefully just a small part, though, since such a swap would be electorally inefficient for Labour.

Thought you lived near Leon, Sean T and Lady G?
That's at least 3...

Nigelb said:

contrarian said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

contrarian said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

contrarian said:

Hartlepool Shmartlepool.

The Speccie points out that Starmer might have to fight another nightmare seat after Thursday. Tracy Brabin will apparently step down as Batley and Spen MP if she triumphs in the West Yorkshire Mayoralty, according to the Speccie.

PB is way ahead of the Speccie, from March.

https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2021/03/07/things-to-look-forward-to-in-2021-an-exciting-by-election/

PS - So many of us are waiting for you to provide that link about the census. It really has huge betting implications.

Why do I feel like I am walking into a trap?

There's a perfectly gettable press release from the US census bureau from 29 April that says 155m people over 18 voted in the US presidential.

CNBC claimed on in November 2020 that 'at least 159.8m ballots were cast?'

It doesn't prove anything but it stokes the republican fires.

What's the big deal?

My google skills aren't working, just asking for a link, if it is gettable could you post it please.

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2021/2020-presidential-election-voting-and-registration-tables-now-available.html#:~:text=APRIL 29, 2021 — The 2020,by the U.S. Census Bureau.

...The estimates presented in this table package may differ from those based on administrative data or exit polls due to factors such as survey nonresponse, vote misreporting and methodological issues related to question wording and survey administration....

DavidL said:

kle4 said:

kle4 said:

TheJezziah said:

kle4 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TheJezziah said:

Pagan2 said:

TheJezziah said:

Endillion said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Pagan2 said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

TheJezziah said:

Explain the logic of Labour losing in the groups most opposed to racism (young and minorities)

If the centrists and right wing fairly tale about Corbyn being racist and Starmer being anti racist were true the opposite would happen.

Starmer seems most popular (comparatively to Corbyn) among groups most in favour of racism (older white people) the same groups were Corbyn is least popular.

I know this might be hard to hear but is it possible it is you that is wrong rather than the children Mr Skinner?

The better starting point is not to be racist because its wrong. Too many of your fellow Corbynite activists - and Corbyn himself - cannot pass this test due to being usually passive but sometimes active anti-semites.

Once you've got this "believing in something cos its right" thing down, the next barrier is not ramming your standards down other people's throats. You may be right and the other person wrong, but sneering / shouting won't change their view in your direction. Quite the opposite in fact.

Finally, don't be a screaming hypocrite. Diane Abbott was on the receiving end of some horrendous racist abuse. She was also on the end of a lot of abuse because she is a shit politician that was willfully miscategorised as racist. At the same time Luciana Berger was also on the end of some horrendous racist abuse - with much of it coming from Labour members who then insisted it wasn't racist.

Diane Abbott is an interesting one to compare with Israel.

If you're attacking Abbott/Israel alone then that seems to be racism.

If you're attacking Abbott along with Rebecca Wrong Daily, Laura Pillock, the Jezziah and the rest of them - then that's not racist.

Wrong-Daily is white. Pillock is white. Berger is BAME. Abbott is BAME. My point was that in large parts of Labour there is a hierarchy of racism where as Baddiel puts it so neatly: Jews Don't Count.

The party promoted Anas Sarwar as the first BAME leader of a political party. Scottish Labour isn't a political party, but Sarwar isn't even the first BAME Labour leader - Ed Milliband doesn't count apparently.

Because to recognise millibrand as bame they wouldn't be able to claim that even for him as Disraeli would be the first Bame leader of a political party and incidentally prime minister

Exactly. I stopped with Ed M and didn't mention Howard or the others because they weren't Labour.

This is the Labour Party. Who claims to be anti-racist. And who still has a massive bind spot when it comes to anti-semitism.

I would say "still" is unfair, given that the start of the problem can be dated precisely to September 2015.

Anyway, using hatred of Starmer by Corbynista fanboys as a crude proxy for whether he's addressing the issue, ten minutes of scanning this forum today has made me quite optimistic.

Weird given people kept going back before that time (whether they were looking for left wing or centrist anti semitism)

I guess all the anti semitism people used as a weapon against Corbyn (or centrists) that appeared before that date was part of Corbyn's evil racist plan were he went back in time and planted racist comments that seem as if they existed before Corbyn won the leadership but clever older white men with large bank accounts saw through this...

Young people and minorities haven't got this kind of magic perception which is why they can't see that Corbyn is secretly a time travelling racist.

Please don't tar young people with your brush, most are sane and a great number of them also saw through corbyn and didnt vote for him 71% in fact

Without young people Corbyn was buried, the old voted against him the young voted for him.

Vast numbers of people as always didn't vote but there is a reason Labour did better among the young.

Corbyn is the first political leader the younger generation has had.

First?

What about Ed Miliband? Nick Clegg? Tony Blair?

Every "younger generation" has always had a leader or leaders politically. The only way to define Corbyn as the first is simply by wiping out any that come before him, in which case Starmer or A N Other could be a first next time.

I've never understood why I'm supposed to think someone is greater because they had more of the young vote, as though its morally worth more.

I criticise the grey vote bribes we get and the age polarisation of recent times is a worry, but we overdo the 'please think of the children(and young people)' stuff - same reason people love youthful campaigners.

I'll never understand people criticising something without reading it, what is the point?

I was on about younger people being less racist and them being the ones who voted for Corbyn (in relatively greater numbers)

Was it really too difficult for you to go back and read the context in which is was used?

Or are my posts just useful staging posts for you to have a self righteous whine without actually reading them?

In future please read the context in which I am saying something or don't talk about my posts. Nothing worse than someone being self righteous when they don't even know what they are talking about.

You need to calm the f*ck down, take your own advice and read what I wrote.

Your post and the one which followed it led me to reflect on a tangential point of my own. It was not a criticism of you or your post and did not say as much.

Why should not one person's thoughts serve as staging for another, separate point by another? I welcomed the discussion and it led me to think about something related but different.

So f*ck you. Amazing how you just personified the very point you wanted to criticise about self righteousness.

Not everything is about you. Nor do you own a discussion or a reply to a post which was not even yours. Just because it was in a thread with yours didn't make it a criticism of you.

So vain.

Oh, and TheJezziah, that's a criticism of you btw. Since you just invented one in your imagination to whinge about clearly you need help to identify an actual criticism of you.

I would respectfully suggest you take some of your own advice and calm down. There's no need for this.

dixiedean said:

There hasn't been a single poll of Greater Manchester I notice.
Burnham has out performed the Labour Party there before.

dixiedean said:

There hasn't been a single poll of Greater Manchester I notice.

contrarian said:

Nigelb said:

contrarian said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

contrarian said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

contrarian said:

Hartlepool Shmartlepool.

The Speccie points out that Starmer might have to fight another nightmare seat after Thursday. Tracy Brabin will apparently step down as Batley and Spen MP if she triumphs in the West Yorkshire Mayoralty, according to the Speccie.

PB is way ahead of the Speccie, from March.

https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2021/03/07/things-to-look-forward-to-in-2021-an-exciting-by-election/

PS - So many of us are waiting for you to provide that link about the census. It really has huge betting implications.

Why do I feel like I am walking into a trap?

There's a perfectly gettable press release from the US census bureau from 29 April that says 155m people over 18 voted in the US presidential.

CNBC claimed on in November 2020 that 'at least 159.8m ballots were cast?'

It doesn't prove anything but it stokes the republican fires.

What's the big deal?

My google skills aren't working, just asking for a link, if it is gettable could you post it please.

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2021/2020-presidential-election-voting-and-registration-tables-now-available.html#:~:text=APRIL 29, 2021 — The 2020,by the U.S. Census Bureau.

...The estimates presented in this table package may differ from those based on administrative data or exit polls due to factors such as survey nonresponse, vote misreporting and methodological issues related to question wording and survey administration....

I never claimed it was accurate, merely that the apparent discrepancy is being used to fuel the (bogus) narrative of a 'stolen' election.

contrarian said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

contrarian said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

contrarian said:

Hartlepool Shmartlepool.

The Speccie points out that Starmer might have to fight another nightmare seat after Thursday. Tracy Brabin will apparently step down as Batley and Spen MP if she triumphs in the West Yorkshire Mayoralty, according to the Speccie.

PB is way ahead of the Speccie, from March.

https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2021/03/07/things-to-look-forward-to-in-2021-an-exciting-by-election/

PS - So many of us are waiting for you to provide that link about the census. It really has huge betting implications.

Why do I feel like I am walking into a trap?

There's a perfectly gettable press release from the US census bureau from 29 April that says 155m people over 18 voted in the US presidential.

CNBC claimed on in November 2020 that 'at least 159.8m ballots were cast?'

It doesn't prove anything but it stokes the republican fires.

What's the big deal?

My google skills aren't working, just asking for a link, if it is gettable could you post it please.

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2021/2020-presidential-election-voting-and-registration-tables-now-available.html#:~:text=APRIL 29, 2021 — The 2020,by the U.S. Census Bureau.

dixiedean said:

There hasn't been a single poll of Greater Manchester I notice.
Burnham has out performed the Labour Party there before.

Maffew said:

Selebian said:

MaxPB said:

Cases now dropping like a stone WoW, deaths almost down to zero. Yet here we are sitting in the cold drinking beer while the nice warm pubs are still closed off.

The scientists have made doom porn modelling an art form. I'm still waiting for those idiots who said we'd have a third wave worse than the second wave to retract their idiot model. Their agenda is laughably transparent and it's time for them to be forced into printing retractions.

Will this do?

rottenborough said:

Even the Modeller of Doom admits this is nearly over.


Dan Bloom
@danbloom1
NEW: Prof Neil Ferguson says we now "don’t see any prospect of the NHS being overwhelmed, with the one caveat around variants", in a third wave this summer/autumn

I thought Neil Ferguson had avoided the doom porn and for most of this year was saying once vaccination is complete we're pretty much done in the UK and would just have to live with flu-level outbreaks.

TheScreamingEagles said:

contrarian said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

contrarian said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

contrarian said:

Hartlepool Shmartlepool.

The Speccie points out that Starmer might have to fight another nightmare seat after Thursday. Tracy Brabin will apparently step down as Batley and Spen MP if she triumphs in the West Yorkshire Mayoralty, according to the Speccie.

PB is way ahead of the Speccie, from March.

https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2021/03/07/things-to-look-forward-to-in-2021-an-exciting-by-election/

PS - So many of us are waiting for you to provide that link about the census. It really has huge betting implications.

Why do I feel like I am walking into a trap?

There's a perfectly gettable press release from the US census bureau from 29 April that says 155m people over 18 voted in the US presidential.

CNBC claimed on in November 2020 that 'at least 159.8m ballots were cast?'

It doesn't prove anything but it stokes the republican fires.

What's the big deal?

My google skills aren't working, just asking for a link, if it is gettable could you post it please.

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2021/2020-presidential-election-voting-and-registration-tables-now-available.html#:~:text=APRIL 29, 2021 — The 2020,by the U.S. Census Bureau.

Thanks, your assertion last night was wrong then.

The 154m Census number is based on those that definitively reported having voted, you forget the 36m that didn't respond.

As the Census bureau notes.

The estimates presented in this table package may differ from those based on administrative data or exit polls due to factors such as survey nonresponse, vote misreporting and methodological issues related to question wording and survey administration.

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

contrarian said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

contrarian said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

contrarian said:

Hartlepool Shmartlepool.

The Speccie points out that Starmer might have to fight another nightmare seat after Thursday. Tracy Brabin will apparently step down as Batley and Spen MP if she triumphs in the West Yorkshire Mayoralty, according to the Speccie.

PB is way ahead of the Speccie, from March.

https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2021/03/07/things-to-look-forward-to-in-2021-an-exciting-by-election/

PS - So many of us are waiting for you to provide that link about the census. It really has huge betting implications.

Why do I feel like I am walking into a trap?

There's a perfectly gettable press release from the US census bureau from 29 April that says 155m people over 18 voted in the US presidential.

CNBC claimed on in November 2020 that 'at least 159.8m ballots were cast?'

It doesn't prove anything but it stokes the republican fires.

What's the big deal?

My google skills aren't working, just asking for a link, if it is gettable could you post it please.

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2021/2020-presidential-election-voting-and-registration-tables-now-available.html#:~:text=APRIL 29, 2021 — The 2020,by the U.S. Census Bureau.

For what it's worth, Wikipedia says total votes cast in 2020 for US President = 158,383,403

Which IF you assume 1% falloff (ballots cast with NOT vote for President) would bump up total turnout to about 160m.

Compared with US census ESTIMATE of 155m (as Contrarian rightly says).

Note that the Wiki number is based on actual votes cast as reported by election authorities, while the Census number is based on survey responses.

Hence the gap is NOT ipso facto prima facie evidence of fraud.

dixiedean said:

kinabalu said:

ping said:

Assuming the polls are true - and labour is losing significant votes in Hartlepool, doing pretty badly in the West Midlands, but ~level pegging overall, WHERE are they piling up votes?

I don’t get it.

Has anyone dug into the subsamples?

I don't think the Tories have a single voter left around my way. So that's part of it. Hopefully just a small part, though, since such a swap would be electorally inefficient for Labour.

Thought you lived near Leon, Sean T and Lady G?
That's at least 3. There may be many more...

DavidL said:

kle4 said:

kle4 said:

TheJezziah said:

kle4 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TheJezziah said:

Pagan2 said:

TheJezziah said:

Endillion said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Pagan2 said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

TheJezziah said:

Explain the logic of Labour losing in the groups most opposed to racism (young and minorities)

If the centrists and right wing fairly tale about Corbyn being racist and Starmer being anti racist were true the opposite would happen.

Starmer seems most popular (comparatively to Corbyn) among groups most in favour of racism (older white people) the same groups were Corbyn is least popular.

I know this might be hard to hear but is it possible it is you that is wrong rather than the children Mr Skinner?

The better starting point is not to be racist because its wrong. Too many of your fellow Corbynite activists - and Corbyn himself - cannot pass this test due to being usually passive but sometimes active anti-semites.

Once you've got this "believing in something cos its right" thing down, the next barrier is not ramming your standards down other people's throats. You may be right and the other person wrong, but sneering / shouting won't change their view in your direction. Quite the opposite in fact.

Finally, don't be a screaming hypocrite. Diane Abbott was on the receiving end of some horrendous racist abuse. She was also on the end of a lot of abuse because she is a shit politician that was willfully miscategorised as racist. At the same time Luciana Berger was also on the end of some horrendous racist abuse - with much of it coming from Labour members who then insisted it wasn't racist.

Diane Abbott is an interesting one to compare with Israel.

If you're attacking Abbott/Israel alone then that seems to be racism.

If you're attacking Abbott along with Rebecca Wrong Daily, Laura Pillock, the Jezziah and the rest of them - then that's not racist.

Wrong-Daily is white. Pillock is white. Berger is BAME. Abbott is BAME. My point was that in large parts of Labour there is a hierarchy of racism where as Baddiel puts it so neatly: Jews Don't Count.

The party promoted Anas Sarwar as the first BAME leader of a political party. Scottish Labour isn't a political party, but Sarwar isn't even the first BAME Labour leader - Ed Milliband doesn't count apparently.

Because to recognise millibrand as bame they wouldn't be able to claim that even for him as Disraeli would be the first Bame leader of a political party and incidentally prime minister

Exactly. I stopped with Ed M and didn't mention Howard or the others because they weren't Labour.

This is the Labour Party. Who claims to be anti-racist. And who still has a massive bind spot when it comes to anti-semitism.

I would say "still" is unfair, given that the start of the problem can be dated precisely to September 2015.

Anyway, using hatred of Starmer by Corbynista fanboys as a crude proxy for whether he's addressing the issue, ten minutes of scanning this forum today has made me quite optimistic.

Weird given people kept going back before that time (whether they were looking for left wing or centrist anti semitism)

I guess all the anti semitism people used as a weapon against Corbyn (or centrists) that appeared before that date was part of Corbyn's evil racist plan were he went back in time and planted racist comments that seem as if they existed before Corbyn won the leadership but clever older white men with large bank accounts saw through this...

Young people and minorities haven't got this kind of magic perception which is why they can't see that Corbyn is secretly a time travelling racist.

Please don't tar young people with your brush, most are sane and a great number of them also saw through corbyn and didnt vote for him 71% in fact

Without young people Corbyn was buried, the old voted against him the young voted for him.

Vast numbers of people as always didn't vote but there is a reason Labour did better among the young.

Corbyn is the first political leader the younger generation has had.

First?

What about Ed Miliband? Nick Clegg? Tony Blair?

Every "younger generation" has always had a leader or leaders politically. The only way to define Corbyn as the first is simply by wiping out any that come before him, in which case Starmer or A N Other could be a first next time.

I've never understood why I'm supposed to think someone is greater because they had more of the young vote, as though its morally worth more.

I criticise the grey vote bribes we get and the age polarisation of recent times is a worry, but we overdo the 'please think of the children(and young people)' stuff - same reason people love youthful campaigners.

I'll never understand people criticising something without reading it, what is the point?

I was on about younger people being less racist and them being the ones who voted for Corbyn (in relatively greater numbers)

Was it really too difficult for you to go back and read the context in which is was used?

Or are my posts just useful staging posts for you to have a self righteous whine without actually reading them?

In future please read the context in which I am saying something or don't talk about my posts. Nothing worse than someone being self righteous when they don't even know what they are talking about.

You need to calm the f*ck down, take your own advice and read what I wrote.

Your post and the one which followed it led me to reflect on a tangential point of my own. It was not a criticism of you or your post and did not say as much.

Why should not one person's thoughts serve as staging for another, separate point by another? I welcomed the discussion and it led me to think about something related but different.

So f*ck you. Amazing how you just personified the very point you wanted to criticise about self righteousness.

Not everything is about you. Nor do you own a discussion or a reply to a post which was not even yours. Just because it was in a thread with yours didn't make it a criticism of you.

So vain.

Oh, and TheJezziah, that's a criticism of you btw. Since you just invented one in your imagination to whinge about clearly you need help to identify an actual criticism of you.

I would respectfully suggest you take some of your own advice and calm down. There's no need for this.

Pro_Rata said:

dixiedean said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

eek said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

contrarian said:

Hartlepool Shmartlepool.

The Speccie points out that Starmer might have to fight another nightmare seat after Thursday. Tracy Brabin will apparently step down as Batley and Spen MP if she triumphs in the West Yorkshire Mayoralty, according to the Speccie.

PB is way ahead of the Speccie, from March.

https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2021/03/07/things-to-look-forward-to-in-2021-an-exciting-by-election/

PS - So many of us are waiting for you to provide that link about the census. It really has huge betting implications.

As a byelection Batley and Spen is far harder to call. The Brexit vote was minimal as it went to the Heavy Woollen District Independents party and there really isn't the "see what you missing out on" issue that Hartlepool had.

However, were SKS to lose that byelection there would be problems as that really should be a Labour seat...

It is a seat I kinda know well through friends.

The big difference between Batley & Spen is that the Heavy Woollen Independents aren't analogous to the Brexit Party in Hartlepool.

This lot think Farage is a woke liberal, and the BNP used to be quite active here as well.

There's also a residual sympathy vote for Labour here as well, whether that lasts at the by election is another factor.

At least one member of the far right certainly was depressingly active.

Looked at these guys' Social profile back in March, looks like the group FB and Twitter had gone pretty quiet during COVID, and their councillor was ploughing a bit of a lone furrow in Dewsbury East (weaving a rough homemade rug?) doing traditional councillor things like staring at potholes (OK, perhaps he had been ploughing a furrow after all). Looks like this year's ward candidate now has the page for pictures of him standing on streets campaigning.

An announced candidate for last year's elections in Dewsbury West was also flagged, but though she later turned up in the Yorkshire Post for a lot of community work during COVID, her Heavy Woollen affiliation was no longer mentioned there.

I am left wondering whether they have been somewhat diminished as a local political force. Let's see on Thursday.

TOPPING said:

Malmesbury said:

UK cases by specimen date

Far k'nell. Turtles zeros all the way down.

contrarian said:

Nigelb said:

contrarian said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

contrarian said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

contrarian said:

Hartlepool Shmartlepool.

The Speccie points out that Starmer might have to fight another nightmare seat after Thursday. Tracy Brabin will apparently step down as Batley and Spen MP if she triumphs in the West Yorkshire Mayoralty, according to the Speccie.

PB is way ahead of the Speccie, from March.

https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2021/03/07/things-to-look-forward-to-in-2021-an-exciting-by-election/

PS - So many of us are waiting for you to provide that link about the census. It really has huge betting implications.

Why do I feel like I am walking into a trap?

There's a perfectly gettable press release from the US census bureau from 29 April that says 155m people over 18 voted in the US presidential.

CNBC claimed on in November 2020 that 'at least 159.8m ballots were cast?'

It doesn't prove anything but it stokes the republican fires.

What's the big deal?

My google skills aren't working, just asking for a link, if it is gettable could you post it please.

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2021/2020-presidential-election-voting-and-registration-tables-now-available.html#:~:text=APRIL 29, 2021 — The 2020,by the U.S. Census Bureau.

...The estimates presented in this table package may differ from those based on administrative data or exit polls due to factors such as survey nonresponse, vote misreporting and methodological issues related to question wording and survey administration....

I never claimed it was accurate, merely that the apparent discrepancy is being used to fuel the (bogus) narrative of a 'stolen' election.

DavidL said:

TOPPING said:

DavidL said:

kle4 said:

kle4 said:

TheJezziah said:

kle4 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TheJezziah said:

Pagan2 said:

TheJezziah said:

Endillion said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Pagan2 said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

TheJezziah said:

Explain the logic of Labour losing in the groups most opposed to racism (young and minorities)

If the centrists and right wing fairly tale about Corbyn being racist and Starmer being anti racist were true the opposite would happen.

Starmer seems most popular (comparatively to Corbyn) among groups most in favour of racism (older white people) the same groups were Corbyn is least popular.

I know this might be hard to hear but is it possible it is you that is wrong rather than the children Mr Skinner?

The better starting point is not to be racist because its wrong. Too many of your fellow Corbynite activists - and Corbyn himself - cannot pass this test due to being usually passive but sometimes active anti-semites.

Once you've got this "believing in something cos its right" thing down, the next barrier is not ramming your standards down other people's throats. You may be right and the other person wrong, but sneering / shouting won't change their view in your direction. Quite the opposite in fact.

Finally, don't be a screaming hypocrite. Diane Abbott was on the receiving end of some horrendous racist abuse. She was also on the end of a lot of abuse because she is a shit politician that was willfully miscategorised as racist. At the same time Luciana Berger was also on the end of some horrendous racist abuse - with much of it coming from Labour members who then insisted it wasn't racist.

Diane Abbott is an interesting one to compare with Israel.

If you're attacking Abbott/Israel alone then that seems to be racism.

If you're attacking Abbott along with Rebecca Wrong Daily, Laura Pillock, the Jezziah and the rest of them - then that's not racist.

Wrong-Daily is white. Pillock is white. Berger is BAME. Abbott is BAME. My point was that in large parts of Labour there is a hierarchy of racism where as Baddiel puts it so neatly: Jews Don't Count.

The party promoted Anas Sarwar as the first BAME leader of a political party. Scottish Labour isn't a political party, but Sarwar isn't even the first BAME Labour leader - Ed Milliband doesn't count apparently.

Because to recognise millibrand as bame they wouldn't be able to claim that even for him as Disraeli would be the first Bame leader of a political party and incidentally prime minister

Exactly. I stopped with Ed M and didn't mention Howard or the others because they weren't Labour.

This is the Labour Party. Who claims to be anti-racist. And who still has a massive bind spot when it comes to anti-semitism.

I would say "still" is unfair, given that the start of the problem can be dated precisely to September 2015.

Anyway, using hatred of Starmer by Corbynista fanboys as a crude proxy for whether he's addressing the issue, ten minutes of scanning this forum today has made me quite optimistic.

Weird given people kept going back before that time (whether they were looking for left wing or centrist anti semitism)

I guess all the anti semitism people used as a weapon against Corbyn (or centrists) that appeared before that date was part of Corbyn's evil racist plan were he went back in time and planted racist comments that seem as if they existed before Corbyn won the leadership but clever older white men with large bank accounts saw through this...

Young people and minorities haven't got this kind of magic perception which is why they can't see that Corbyn is secretly a time travelling racist.

Please don't tar young people with your brush, most are sane and a great number of them also saw through corbyn and didnt vote for him 71% in fact

Without young people Corbyn was buried, the old voted against him the young voted for him.

Vast numbers of people as always didn't vote but there is a reason Labour did better among the young.

Corbyn is the first political leader the younger generation has had.

First?

What about Ed Miliband? Nick Clegg? Tony Blair?

Every "younger generation" has always had a leader or leaders politically. The only way to define Corbyn as the first is simply by wiping out any that come before him, in which case Starmer or A N Other could be a first next time.

I've never understood why I'm supposed to think someone is greater because they had more of the young vote, as though its morally worth more.

I criticise the grey vote bribes we get and the age polarisation of recent times is a worry, but we overdo the 'please think of the children(and young people)' stuff - same reason people love youthful campaigners.

I'll never understand people criticising something without reading it, what is the point?

I was on about younger people being less racist and them being the ones who voted for Corbyn (in relatively greater numbers)

Was it really too difficult for you to go back and read the context in which is was used?

Or are my posts just useful staging posts for you to have a self righteous whine without actually reading them?

In future please read the context in which I am saying something or don't talk about my posts. Nothing worse than someone being self righteous when they don't even know what they are talking about.

You need to calm the f*ck down, take your own advice and read what I wrote.

Your post and the one which followed it led me to reflect on a tangential point of my own. It was not a criticism of you or your post and did not say as much.

Why should not one person's thoughts serve as staging for another, separate point by another? I welcomed the discussion and it led me to think about something related but different.

So f*ck you. Amazing how you just personified the very point you wanted to criticise about self righteousness.

Not everything is about you. Nor do you own a discussion or a reply to a post which was not even yours. Just because it was in a thread with yours didn't make it a criticism of you.

So vain.

Oh, and TheJezziah, that's a criticism of you btw. Since you just invented one in your imagination to whinge about clearly you need help to identify an actual criticism of you.

I would respectfully suggest you take some of your own advice and calm down. There's no need for this.

I didn't know there had been a vacancy for site policeman, David?

What made you think that it would be advertised @TOPPING ? Its disappointing when an interesting debate falls away into personal abuse. Anyway @kle4 , who is normally very civilised, took it in the right spirit.

DavidL said:

So the scores on the doors for SKS are likely to be:

Overall council seats, a bit of a wash, not much change either way.
Hartlepool a loss.
London a clear win, probably not on the first count.
Scotland small progress
Wales small retreat, not nearly as bad as it looked a month ago
West Midlands Mayor, a bit of a thumping.
Teeside Mayor probably a loss.
Greater Manchester Mayor, a clear win.

It's not a great scorecard, is it? More of a C- than a C+ I would say.

TOPPING said:

DavidL said:

TOPPING said:

DavidL said:

kle4 said:

kle4 said:

TheJezziah said:

kle4 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TheJezziah said:

Pagan2 said:

TheJezziah said:

Endillion said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Pagan2 said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

TheJezziah said:

Explain the logic of Labour losing in the groups most opposed to racism (young and minorities)

If the centrists and right wing fairly tale about Corbyn being racist and Starmer being anti racist were true the opposite would happen.

Starmer seems most popular (comparatively to Corbyn) among groups most in favour of racism (older white people) the same groups were Corbyn is least popular.

I know this might be hard to hear but is it possible it is you that is wrong rather than the children Mr Skinner?

The better starting point is not to be racist because its wrong. Too many of your fellow Corbynite activists - and Corbyn himself - cannot pass this test due to being usually passive but sometimes active anti-semites.

Once you've got this "believing in something cos its right" thing down, the next barrier is not ramming your standards down other people's throats. You may be right and the other person wrong, but sneering / shouting won't change their view in your direction. Quite the opposite in fact.

Finally, don't be a screaming hypocrite. Diane Abbott was on the receiving end of some horrendous racist abuse. She was also on the end of a lot of abuse because she is a shit politician that was willfully miscategorised as racist. At the same time Luciana Berger was also on the end of some horrendous racist abuse - with much of it coming from Labour members who then insisted it wasn't racist.

Diane Abbott is an interesting one to compare with Israel.

If you're attacking Abbott/Israel alone then that seems to be racism.

If you're attacking Abbott along with Rebecca Wrong Daily, Laura Pillock, the Jezziah and the rest of them - then that's not racist.

Wrong-Daily is white. Pillock is white. Berger is BAME. Abbott is BAME. My point was that in large parts of Labour there is a hierarchy of racism where as Baddiel puts it so neatly: Jews Don't Count.

The party promoted Anas Sarwar as the first BAME leader of a political party. Scottish Labour isn't a political party, but Sarwar isn't even the first BAME Labour leader - Ed Milliband doesn't count apparently.

Because to recognise millibrand as bame they wouldn't be able to claim that even for him as Disraeli would be the first Bame leader of a political party and incidentally prime minister

Exactly. I stopped with Ed M and didn't mention Howard or the others because they weren't Labour.

This is the Labour Party. Who claims to be anti-racist. And who still has a massive bind spot when it comes to anti-semitism.

I would say "still" is unfair, given that the start of the problem can be dated precisely to September 2015.

Anyway, using hatred of Starmer by Corbynista fanboys as a crude proxy for whether he's addressing the issue, ten minutes of scanning this forum today has made me quite optimistic.

Weird given people kept going back before that time (whether they were looking for left wing or centrist anti semitism)

I guess all the anti semitism people used as a weapon against Corbyn (or centrists) that appeared before that date was part of Corbyn's evil racist plan were he went back in time and planted racist comments that seem as if they existed before Corbyn won the leadership but clever older white men with large bank accounts saw through this...

Young people and minorities haven't got this kind of magic perception which is why they can't see that Corbyn is secretly a time travelling racist.

Please don't tar young people with your brush, most are sane and a great number of them also saw through corbyn and didnt vote for him 71% in fact

Without young people Corbyn was buried, the old voted against him the young voted for him.

Vast numbers of people as always didn't vote but there is a reason Labour did better among the young.

Corbyn is the first political leader the younger generation has had.

First?

What about Ed Miliband? Nick Clegg? Tony Blair?

Every "younger generation" has always had a leader or leaders politically. The only way to define Corbyn as the first is simply by wiping out any that come before him, in which case Starmer or A N Other could be a first next time.

I've never understood why I'm supposed to think someone is greater because they had more of the young vote, as though its morally worth more.

I criticise the grey vote bribes we get and the age polarisation of recent times is a worry, but we overdo the 'please think of the children(and young people)' stuff - same reason people love youthful campaigners.

I'll never understand people criticising something without reading it, what is the point?

I was on about younger people being less racist and them being the ones who voted for Corbyn (in relatively greater numbers)

Was it really too difficult for you to go back and read the context in which is was used?

Or are my posts just useful staging posts for you to have a self righteous whine without actually reading them?

In future please read the context in which I am saying something or don't talk about my posts. Nothing worse than someone being self righteous when they don't even know what they are talking about.

You need to calm the f*ck down, take your own advice and read what I wrote.

Your post and the one which followed it led me to reflect on a tangential point of my own. It was not a criticism of you or your post and did not say as much.

Why should not one person's thoughts serve as staging for another, separate point by another? I welcomed the discussion and it led me to think about something related but different.

So f*ck you. Amazing how you just personified the very point you wanted to criticise about self righteousness.

Not everything is about you. Nor do you own a discussion or a reply to a post which was not even yours. Just because it was in a thread with yours didn't make it a criticism of you.

So vain.

Oh, and TheJezziah, that's a criticism of you btw. Since you just invented one in your imagination to whinge about clearly you need help to identify an actual criticism of you.

I would respectfully suggest you take some of your own advice and calm down. There's no need for this.

I didn't know there had been a vacancy for site policeman, David?

What made you think that it would be advertised @TOPPING ? Its disappointing when an interesting debate falls away into personal abuse. Anyway @kle4 , who is normally very civilised, took it in the right spirit.

I wanted to know what the perks were.

And yes wrt @kle4: "no you fuck off" was about the right spirit.

But it would be a huge shame if @TheJezziah were to be inhibited in his posting.

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

contrarian said:

Nigelb said:

contrarian said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

contrarian said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

contrarian said:

Hartlepool Shmartlepool.

The Speccie points out that Starmer might have to fight another nightmare seat after Thursday. Tracy Brabin will apparently step down as Batley and Spen MP if she triumphs in the West Yorkshire Mayoralty, according to the Speccie.

PB is way ahead of the Speccie, from March.

https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2021/03/07/things-to-look-forward-to-in-2021-an-exciting-by-election/

PS - So many of us are waiting for you to provide that link about the census. It really has huge betting implications.

Why do I feel like I am walking into a trap?

There's a perfectly gettable press release from the US census bureau from 29 April that says 155m people over 18 voted in the US presidential.

CNBC claimed on in November 2020 that 'at least 159.8m ballots were cast?'

It doesn't prove anything but it stokes the republican fires.

What's the big deal?

My google skills aren't working, just asking for a link, if it is gettable could you post it please.

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2021/2020-presidential-election-voting-and-registration-tables-now-available.html#:~:text=APRIL 29, 2021 — The 2020,by the U.S. Census Bureau.

...The estimates presented in this table package may differ from those based on administrative data or exit polls due to factors such as survey nonresponse, vote misreporting and methodological issues related to question wording and survey administration....

I never claimed it was accurate, merely that the apparent discrepancy is being used to fuel the (bogus) narrative of a 'stolen' election.

Yes, but note that 99.46% of the argument behind the "Biden stole the election from Trump" argument is based on similar misunderstanding (too often willful) of the basic numbers.

Unholy alliance of statistical ignorance and political ideology. Which is NOT confined to Trumpsky & minions. But they are leading poster children for this nexus at the moment.

DavidL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

DavidL said:

CursingStone said:

DavidL said:

So the scores on the doors for SKS are likely to be:

Overall council seats, a bit of a wash, not much change either way.
Hartlepool a loss.
London a clear win, probably not on the first count.
Scotland small progress
Wales small retreat, not nearly as bad as it looked a month ago
West Midlands Mayor, a bit of a thumping.
Teeside Mayor probably a loss.
Greater Manchester Mayor, a clear win.

It's not a great scorecard, is it? More of a C- than a C+ I would say.

If there's no Scotland progress I would be saying more a solid D. IDS was dumped for a much much better performance than this.

I had thought that Sarwar just might deliver second place behind the SNP. That is not what the polling is showing now though.

If you look at the leader ratings Sarwar is in for a good night, DRoss not so much, but Alex Salmond and Alba will be lucky to get one seat.

I think that they will get 2, 1 in the NE and 1 in Highland. An embarrassingly poor performance for the former FM.

The other thing to bear in mind is that Scottish Tories are used to having really crap leaders. Until Ruth came along it was the norm. Didn't stop them voting.

kinabalu said:

RobD said:

.

kinabalu said:

ping said:

Assuming the polls are true - and labour is losing significant votes in Hartlepool, doing pretty badly in the West Midlands, but ~level pegging overall, WHERE are they piling up votes?

I don’t get it.

Has anyone dug into the subsamples?

I don't think the Tories have a single voter left around my way. So that's part of it. Hopefully just a small part, though, since such a swap would be electorally inefficient for Labour.

Are there really seats where the Tory vote is zero? Even in seats like East Ham they manage ~15%.

No, not yet. I think we can have a crack at it round here though. Can you imagine if we pulled it off at the next GE? Talk about your badge of honour! - and a great boost for house prices as people in more "diverse" areas hear about it and want a piece.

AlistairM said:

MaxPB said:

Cases now dropping like a stone WoW, deaths almost down to zero. Yet here we are sitting in the cold drinking beer while the nice warm pubs are still closed off.

The scientists have made doom porn modelling an art form. I'm still waiting for those idiots who said we'd have a third wave worse than the second wave to retract their idiot model. Their agenda is laughably transparent and it's time for them to be forced into printing retractions.

Hospital admissions are a week behind and haven't been updated in a few days. No mention of this on the site. Wondering what is happening. Maybe the numbers are too good/bad?

DavidL said:

williamglenn said:

If you’re an MP for La République en Marche, a flag in the background isn’t sufficient.

It's a weird picture of Macron. Come and have a go if you think you're hard enough is the posture.

TheScreamingEagles said:

In 2014 a couple of days before the Heywood and Middleton by election a Ashcroft poll had Labour winning it by 19%, the actual result a 2% majority for Labour.

#ConstituencyPollingIsDifficult

Philip_Thompson said:

Given the tiny number of deaths now it must be quite possible that some if not all of these so-called Coronavirus deaths are naturally occurring deaths of people who by pure coincidence tested positive within last 28 days?

That wasn't true all pandemic, though its certainly been a factor which is why the real death toll is tens of thousands fewer than the 'official' one. But it must surely be a real factor now?

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

williamglenn said:

If you’re an MP for La République en Marche, a flag in the background isn’t sufficient.

It's a weird picture of Macron. Come and have a go if you think you're hard enough is the posture.

And why is it on an easel ?
Has he just finished a painting-by-numbers Macron ?

Very odd.

TOPPING said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

In 2014 a couple of days before the Heywood and Middleton by election a Ashcroft poll had Labour winning it by 19%, the actual result a 2% majority for Labour.

#ConstituencyPollingIsDifficult

I've backed Lab at 5s (6bf).

Why? No idea apart from if we Brits are as bloody-minded as we are supposed to be it will be a matter of honour to give the incumbents a shock in case anyone is being taken for granted.

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

williamglenn said:

If you’re an MP for La République en Marche, a flag in the background isn’t sufficient.

It's a weird picture of Macron. Come and have a go if you think you're hard enough is the posture.

And why is it on an easel ?
Has he just finished a painting-by-numbers Macron ?

Very odd.

Cookie said:

AlistairM said:

MaxPB said:

Cases now dropping like a stone WoW, deaths almost down to zero. Yet here we are sitting in the cold drinking beer while the nice warm pubs are still closed off.

The scientists have made doom porn modelling an art form. I'm still waiting for those idiots who said we'd have a third wave worse than the second wave to retract their idiot model. Their agenda is laughably transparent and it's time for them to be forced into printing retractions.

Hospital admissions are a week behind and haven't been updated in a few days. No mention of this on the site. Wondering what is happening. Maybe the numbers are too good/bad?

Hospital admissions have been a week behind/slow to update for some weeks or months now. No conspiracy there, I don't think!

I also think Ferguson at least and perhaps others HAVE updated their model, using new assumptions (i.e. reflecting real-world vaccine efficacy). I was amongst those bemoaning that they hadn't, but I think they now have. So we now have to target our ire at those further up the chain not budging.

Philip_Thompson said:

Given the tiny number of deaths now it must be quite possible that some if not all of these so-called Coronavirus deaths are naturally occurring deaths of people who by pure coincidence tested positive within last 28 days?

That wasn't true all pandemic, though its certainly been a factor which is why the real death toll is tens of thousands fewer than the 'official' one. But it must surely be a real factor now?

Andy_JS said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Given the tiny number of deaths now it must be quite possible that some if not all of these so-called Coronavirus deaths are naturally occurring deaths of people who by pure coincidence tested positive within last 28 days?

That wasn't true all pandemic, though its certainly been a factor which is why the real death toll is tens of thousands fewer than the 'official' one. But it must surely be a real factor now?

+1

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

williamglenn said:

If you’re an MP for La République en Marche, a flag in the background isn’t sufficient.

It's a weird picture of Macron. Come and have a go if you think you're hard enough is the posture.

And why is it on an easel ?
Has he just finished a painting-by-numbers Macron ?

Very odd.

TOPPING said:

DavidL said:

kle4 said:

kle4 said:

TheJezziah said:

kle4 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TheJezziah said:

Pagan2 said:

TheJezziah said:

Endillion said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Pagan2 said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Philip_Thompson said:

RochdalePioneers said:

TheJezziah said:

Explain the logic of Labour losing in the groups most opposed to racism (young and minorities)

If the centrists and right wing fairly tale about Corbyn being racist and Starmer being anti racist were true the opposite would happen.

Starmer seems most popular (comparatively to Corbyn) among groups most in favour of racism (older white people) the same groups were Corbyn is least popular.

I know this might be hard to hear but is it possible it is you that is wrong rather than the children Mr Skinner?

The better starting point is not to be racist because its wrong. Too many of your fellow Corbynite activists - and Corbyn himself - cannot pass this test due to being usually passive but sometimes active anti-semites.

Once you've got this "believing in something cos its right" thing down, the next barrier is not ramming your standards down other people's throats. You may be right and the other person wrong, but sneering / shouting won't change their view in your direction. Quite the opposite in fact.

Finally, don't be a screaming hypocrite. Diane Abbott was on the receiving end of some horrendous racist abuse. She was also on the end of a lot of abuse because she is a shit politician that was willfully miscategorised as racist. At the same time Luciana Berger was also on the end of some horrendous racist abuse - with much of it coming from Labour members who then insisted it wasn't racist.

Diane Abbott is an interesting one to compare with Israel.

If you're attacking Abbott/Israel alone then that seems to be racism.

If you're attacking Abbott along with Rebecca Wrong Daily, Laura Pillock, the Jezziah and the rest of them - then that's not racist.

Wrong-Daily is white. Pillock is white. Berger is BAME. Abbott is BAME. My point was that in large parts of Labour there is a hierarchy of racism where as Baddiel puts it so neatly: Jews Don't Count.

The party promoted Anas Sarwar as the first BAME leader of a political party. Scottish Labour isn't a political party, but Sarwar isn't even the first BAME Labour leader - Ed Milliband doesn't count apparently.

Because to recognise millibrand as bame they wouldn't be able to claim that even for him as Disraeli would be the first Bame leader of a political party and incidentally prime minister

Exactly. I stopped with Ed M and didn't mention Howard or the others because they weren't Labour.

This is the Labour Party. Who claims to be anti-racist. And who still has a massive bind spot when it comes to anti-semitism.

I would say "still" is unfair, given that the start of the problem can be dated precisely to September 2015.

Anyway, using hatred of Starmer by Corbynista fanboys as a crude proxy for whether he's addressing the issue, ten minutes of scanning this forum today has made me quite optimistic.

Weird given people kept going back before that time (whether they were looking for left wing or centrist anti semitism)

I guess all the anti semitism people used as a weapon against Corbyn (or centrists) that appeared before that date was part of Corbyn's evil racist plan were he went back in time and planted racist comments that seem as if they existed before Corbyn won the leadership but clever older white men with large bank accounts saw through this...

Young people and minorities haven't got this kind of magic perception which is why they can't see that Corbyn is secretly a time travelling racist.

Please don't tar young people with your brush, most are sane and a great number of them also saw through corbyn and didnt vote for him 71% in fact

Without young people Corbyn was buried, the old voted against him the young voted for him.

Vast numbers of people as always didn't vote but there is a reason Labour did better among the young.

Corbyn is the first political leader the younger generation has had.

First?

What about Ed Miliband? Nick Clegg? Tony Blair?

Every "younger generation" has always had a leader or leaders politically. The only way to define Corbyn as the first is simply by wiping out any that come before him, in which case Starmer or A N Other could be a first next time.

I've never understood why I'm supposed to think someone is greater because they had more of the young vote, as though its morally worth more.

I criticise the grey vote bribes we get and the age polarisation of recent times is a worry, but we overdo the 'please think of the children(and young people)' stuff - same reason people love youthful campaigners.

I'll never understand people criticising something without reading it, what is the point?

I was on about younger people being less racist and them being the ones who voted for Corbyn (in relatively greater numbers)

Was it really too difficult for you to go back and read the context in which is was used?

Or are my posts just useful staging posts for you to have a self righteous whine without actually reading them?

In future please read the context in which I am saying something or don't talk about my posts. Nothing worse than someone being self righteous when they don't even know what they are talking about.

You need to calm the f*ck down, take your own advice and read what I wrote.

Your post and the one which followed it led me to reflect on a tangential point of my own. It was not a criticism of you or your post and did not say as much.

Why should not one person's thoughts serve as staging for another, separate point by another? I welcomed the discussion and it led me to think about something related but different.

So f*ck you. Amazing how you just personified the very point you wanted to criticise about self righteousness.

Not everything is about you. Nor do you own a discussion or a reply to a post which was not even yours. Just because it was in a thread with yours didn't make it a criticism of you.

So vain.

Oh, and TheJezziah, that's a criticism of you btw. Since you just invented one in your imagination to whinge about clearly you need help to identify an actual criticism of you.

I would respectfully suggest you take some of your own advice and calm down. There's no need for this.

I didn't know there had been a vacancy for site policeman, David?

Selebian said:

Nigelb said:

DavidL said:

williamglenn said:

If you’re an MP for La République en Marche, a flag in the background isn’t sufficient.

It's a weird picture of Macron. Come and have a go if you think you're hard enough is the posture.

And why is it on an easel ?
Has he just finished a painting-by-numbers Macron ?

Very odd.

Reminds me of Margritte's The Human Condition. Can we be sure it is a painting and not actually Macron hiding (partially) behind an easel? He's short, right? Add a bit of perspective...

Floater said:

Lets just think about this - 10 years plus into a tory government - after austerity, covid cock ups and recent revelations - but Labour look set to lose Hartlepool in a by-election........

Labour need to change - but not in a way Jezziah would want.