Peterborough by-election

[banjodeano 31]

26 minutes ago, ANGELFIRE1 said:

And there is the problem.

 

Angel1.

perhaps the voters thought all this antisemitism stuff is nonsense, or are they antisemitic as well voting for an antisemite (scratches head)

[nightrider 13]

1 hour ago, the_bloke said:

I know his agenda as do most people that look at his site. Are you suggesting the screenshots of Mrs Forbes facebook posts are fake and Guido is lying?

he regularly posts fake news e.g. provides a link to make it look real, but when you read the link it does not say what he claims. If you point this out in the comments, the comment is soon deleted!

 

Though not all posts have fake news, enough are accurate to make the rest plausible to the uninquisitive!

1 hour ago, Pettytom said:

I’ve seen the Guardian report. I like my news unbiased 😀

 

It isn’t a great introduction to a new MP, is it? I would like to know a bit more about the different allegations. She’s saying it was a mistake. Other prominent Labour MPs seem a  little reluctant to just let that slide. I think that Jess Phillips’ response was a good one.

 

I’m very uneasy about all this Facebook mining though.  I think it is lazy journalism and likely to put good people off entering politics. I’ll bet that many people have liked a Facebook post without properly considering the meaning of it. That alone doesn’t make someone unfit for public office. We have many politicians who are unfit, but  with clean Facebook profiles. I guess you get the politicians you deserve in the end.

 

 

Well I've been using facebook for years and have managed to not "like" anything anti-semitic. It's not that hard.

Edited June 7, 2019 by nightrider

[alchresearch 214]

1 hour ago, Pettytom said:

I’m not suggesting anything other than the fact that Guido is as biased a news source as you can get.

And I suppose the New Statesman isn't left leaning in any way?

[Arthur Ritus 30]

I think the most relevant statistic is:

Turnout was 48.4%, down from 67.5% in the 2017 general election.

At such a time with all what is happening in the political world you would think motivation to vote would be higher, either over half the voters thought there was no one worth voting for or lost any belief in the UK electoral system.

The constituency will be represented by someone selected by less than 16%  of the population.

Can't help but wonder what kind of turn out there will be for the next General Election, something needs fixing.

[max 13]

A greatly reduced turnout and yet Labour managed to increase their majority, strange political world we live in.

[Pettytom 1]

54 minutes ago, alchresearch said:

And I suppose the New Statesman isn't left leaning in any way?

Which do you think has the higher journalistic standards?

[the_bloke 17]

28 minutes ago, max said:

A greatly reduced turnout and yet Labour managed to increase their majority, strange political world we live in.

2019 results:

 

Labour: votes cast 10,484 (30% of the vote)

 

2017 results:

 

Labour: votes cast 22,950 (48% of the vote)

 

I don't see an increase.

[Robin-H 11]

22 minutes ago, the_bloke said:

2019 results:

 

Labour: votes cast 10,484 (30% of the vote)

 

2017 results:

 

Labour: votes cast 22,950 (48% of the vote)

 

I don't see an increase.

Technically, they increased their majority by something like 72 votes (or 76, can't remember) but yes, the actual numbers saw a big decrease, which is the more relevant statistic. 

Edited June 7, 2019 by Robin-H

[Mister M 1,625]

As I said before I'm not bothered about Labour winning Peterborough, but it's not difficult to enjoy the sour grapes on here today

[Lockdoctor 10]

3 hours ago, ANGELFIRE1 said:

Watched the by election results late into the morning, and the interview with Andrew Neil and the Labour winner. He grilled her severely about her  liking anti Semitic posts on Facebook, which she had to apologise for in a fashion. She fits in well with Corbyn's idea of the Labour Party.

 

Not keen on watching Nigel slink away when Brexit lost. I have to admit I would rather have seen him stand his ground and simply tell the truth, it was a good night for Brexit, a very good night, but not good enough. The Labour vote collapsed, but not enough for a Brexit break through, simple as.

 

Angel1.

Nigel Farage has form for being a bad loser dating back to just after the polls closed for the 2016 EU referendum when it looked like Remain had won.  Nigel Farage should have stayed in Stamford  until after the result had been announced rather than slinking away.   Party Leaders should only turn up before a result is announced when they are certain their party has won.

6 hours ago, Voice of reason said:

It's a funny one to analyse. Obviously a good night for Labour, in that they held the seat.

But also one for them to ponder, as their share of the vote fell from 23,000 to 10,500 . Brexit party and tories on 10,000 and 7,000 .

 

I think it was the best possible result for the Tory Party given the current situation.  A narrow win for the Labour Party over the Brexit Party  has to send out a big warning to them to get Brexit sorted out by October 31st otherwise when a General Election happens Corbyn is likely to end up being Prime Minister.

Edited June 7, 2019 by Lockdoctor

[Magilla 510]

52 minutes ago, Lockdoctor said:

I think it was the best possible result for the Tory Party given the current situation.  A narrow win for the Labour Party over the Brexit Party  has to send out a big warning to them to get Brexit sorted out by October 31st otherwise when a General Election happens Corbyn is likely to end up being Prime Minister.

A tough choice... economic or political suicide

[Lockdoctor 10]

27 minutes ago, Magilla said:

A tough choice... economic or political suicide

I have no economics worries about a no deal Brexit or a Managed Exit,  but the prospect of Corbyn becoming our Prime Minister gives me economic worries as well as other worries.