Westminster Politics

DanH said:
What was the official Labour line on what was said?
Click to expand...
A bunch of MPs have said the person should be kicked out of the party, but in such a way that doesn't involve naming them - so we can't find out when they inevitably not only remain within the party but remain sat on its NEC. Luckily the media have already grown bored of it, like they did when they were comparing councillors to fleas, so no harm done. The Guardian were even editing the problematic bit out of the quote when using it yesterday afternoon.

pacifictheme said:
Did you just get half way through my post and give up or can you just not read.
Click to expand...
'Here's how the BBC would make it up, but I don't think it happened here. But if it was made up, which it isn't, this is how they'd do it. Not that I'm saying they have, but this is how they could. Also, here's their motive, for something I'm not saying they've done'
 
Anyone calling Laura Kuenssberg biased in favour of the Tories is clearly a sexist who hates women being in positions of power.

Oh sorry, we stopped that line in January 2020. Now it's merely a demonstrable fact that everyone should be able to notice.
 
Dobba said:
A bunch of MPs have said the person should be kicked out of the party, but in such a way that doesn't involve naming them - so we can't find out when they inevitably not only remain within the party but remain sat on its NEC. Luckily the media have already grown bored of it, like they did when they were comparing councillors to fleas, so no harm done. The Guardian were even editing the problematic bit out of the quote when using it yesterday afternoon.


'Here's how the BBC would make it up, but I don't think it happened here. But if it was made up, which it isn't, this is how they'd do it. Not that I'm saying they have, but this is how they could. Also, here's their motive, for something I'm not saying they've done'
Click to expand...

Ok you've lost your mind.
 
Dobba said:
A bunch of MPs have said the person should be kicked out of the party, but in such a way that doesn't involve naming them - so we can't find out when they inevitably not only remain within the party but remain sat on its NEC. Luckily the media have already grown bored of it, like they did when they were comparing councillors to fleas, so no harm done. The Guardian were even editing the problematic bit out of the quote when using it yesterday afternoon.
Click to expand...

Ok, it is a terrible statement and shouldn't have been said, but what level of proof do you think it's appropriate to have before naming/taking action against an individual? If this quote was given on a confidential basis to a journalist then you/the party may be pretty certain who said it but where is the evidence beyond feelings if the journalist doesn't name the source and the source doesn't come forward?

Criticism of the journalist for not naming the source may be valid, but overall I think it's better to live in a society where journalists will protect their sources as I think that freedom of information is beneficial on balance even if it can at times seem unfair/frustrating.
 
DanH said:
Ok, it is a terrible statement and shouldn't have been said, but what level of proof do you think it's appropriate to have before naming/taking action against an individual? If this quote was given on a confidential basis to a journalist then you/the party may be pretty certain who said it but where is the evidence beyond feelings if the journalist doesn't name the source and the source doesn't come forward?

Criticism of the journalist for not naming the source may be valid, but overall I think it's better to live in a society where journalists will protect their sources as I think that freedom of information is beneficial on balance even if it can at times seem unfair/frustrating.
Click to expand...
That's all well and good if the source is somebody who is informing the journalist about someone who is committing a crime(Racism), but if the source is the racist they shouldn't be protected.
 
DanH said:
Ok, it is a terrible statement and shouldn't have been said, but what level of proof do you think it's appropriate to have before naming/taking action against an individual? If this quote was given on a confidential basis to a journalist then you/the party may be pretty certain who said it but where is the evidence beyond feelings if the journalist doesn't name the source and the source doesn't come forward?

Criticism of the journalist for not naming the source may be valid, but overall I think it's better to live in a society where journalists will protect their sources as I think that freedom of information is beneficial on balance even if it can at times seem unfair/frustrating.
Click to expand...
The journalist won't reveal their source because then nobody would provide them with anything. The source doesn't need to come forward because the party he was speaking for knows who said it, but if they say who it is their claim that they don't speak for the party become even more laughable than it is now. He's not a MP, but he's on the NEC, he's got previous for saying exactly this sort of thing and faced no punishment for it. He's untouchable and the fact the party isn't ever going to out him shows that they think that too. He represents them now, he'll represent them tomorrow and he'll represent them next week/month/year.

Luckily for Starmer our media are more likely to ask him where he thinks Lord Lucan is than to name and shame the Reg Holdsworth lookalike.
 
Last edited:
Dobba said:
The journalist won't reveal their source because then nobody would provide them with anything. The source doesn't need to come forward because the party he was speaking for knows who said it, but if they say who it is their claim that they don't speak for the party become even more laughable than it is now. He's not a MP, but he's on the NEC, he's got previous for saying exactly this sort of thing and faced no punishment for it. He's untouchable and the fact the party isn't ever going to out him shows that they think that too. He represents them now, he'll represent them tomorrow and he'll represent them next week/month/year.

Luckily for Starmer our media are more likely to ask him where he thinks Lord Lucan is than to name and shame the Reg Holdsworth lookalike.
Click to expand...
I'm intrigued about how you know this?

I'm getting tired of politicians paying lip service to this when it applies to certain groups, whereas with others they are magically able to find out who the person is immediately and do something about it. They seem to only ever do anything about it when the public are paying attention, otherwise it just gets swept under the rug.
 
Come on Sunak, just call the election. Its an open secret your wife hates living at Downing Street and has been making plans to move back to California.
 
BBC reporting there's a big tory meeting planned for next week. Attendees are expected to present ideas for something to privatise. The backup plan is deciding which country to pick a fight with, though sources understand that there's some reluctance with this plan as most of the countries that the gammons have heard of would be too tough for us these days.
 
Kaos said:
Add to that its clear ULEZ wasn't the electoral minefield everyone thought it would be. Turns out people like having cleaner air in their neighbourhoods and around their workplaces and green spaces.
Click to expand...

ULEZ is a stealth tax. Khan's record in London is deplorable. Not sure I can point to anything good that he has done. A sad state of affairs that there was no decent opposition
 
marktan said:
Genuinely very happy to see the Labour vote significantly drop in the Muslim population and that the Greens have made large gains. Some positive news in what has been 7 months of sadness over Gaza.

The Muslim voting block is a very big one, and yet doesn't feel anywhere near as influential or organised as say the Jewish voting block in America is. I'm very glad to see that people backed the Greens who very early on called for a ceasefire.

In London, Khan winning was always pretty likely in my view. He's insulated from the Gaza stuff because he's always strayed from the Labour line, and I expect most Londoners are actually pro less polluting cars. Of course the Conservatives fielding three terrible candidates in a row hasn't helped them. You don't need another Boris but just some regular professional guy with no history of xenophobic comments would've helped them tremendously, something all of the last three have failed to be.
Click to expand...

All the Tories needed was someone like Rory Stewart. He would have wiped the floor with Khan.
 
gfactor86 said:
ULEZ is a stealth tax. Khan's record in London is deplorable. Not sure I can point to anything good that he has done. A sad state of affairs that there was no decent opposition
Click to expand...
Nothing stealthy about it - it factually gives cleaner air in London.

is the tax on cigarettes a stealth tax?
 
Vernon Philander said:
Nothing stealthy about it - it factually gives cleaner air in London.

is the tax on cigarettes a stealth tax?
Click to expand...

it's a stealth tax. They're ending the EV exemption on congestion charge in London. Why? Because it was never about cleaner air. It's a tax on people to make more money for the council.
 
Andy Street losing for about 1500 votes in West Midlands has to be one of the biggest Tory failures in recent times, considering they were so keen to bring in the first past the post system
 
gfactor86 said:
it's a stealth tax. They're ending the EV exemption on congestion charge in London. Why? Because it was never about cleaner air. It's a tax on people to make more money for the council.
Click to expand...

Believe it or not, the best way to make money from car use is to reduce it, not to tax it. The externalities stemming from private car use are way more costly than whatever taxes they offer, including ulez, ved and fuel duty.
 
Then on top of that, he's turned London into a fecking cesspit. Lawlessness, knife crime, gang culture, divisions and lack of social cohesion, expensive transport.

it's hard to believe that he could have done a worse job. Yet gets a 3rd term
 
gfactor86 said:
ULEZ is a stealth tax. Khan's record in London is deplorable. Not sure I can point to anything good that he has done. A sad state of affairs that there was no decent opposition
Click to expand...
Thankfully London seems to disagree with you. Most of us here appreciate having cleaner air. He's by no means a perfect mayor, but a breath of fresh air (literally) compared to the clown that preceded him as well as the clowns who are offered as an alternative.
 
gfactor86 said:
Then on top of that, he's turned London into a fecking cesspit. Lawlessness, knife crime, gang culture, divisions and lack of social cohesion, expensive transport.

it's hard to believe that he could have done a worse job. Yet gets a 3rd term
Click to expand...

Let me guess, black cab driver?
 
gfactor86 said:
it's a stealth tax. They're ending the EV exemption on congestion charge in London. Why? Because it was never about cleaner air. It's a tax on people to make more money for the council.
Click to expand...

The clue is in the name, I'd have thought.

Still exempt for ulez charge though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.