|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 27, 2024 12:30:10 GMT
There wasn't one, it was a lie concocted by Starmer and Hoyle, in an attempt to save the Speaker's bacon. British politics is in the gutter. What I wanted to know then Paul ( I just have not had time to keep up) ....what was the link that Hoyle wanted us to make? There wasn't a safety issue, even the Met said they didn't know what Hoyle was on about. The previous day, the Speaker had extremely controversially, gone against protocol and allowed Labour to make an ammendment to an SNP motion, after receiving pressure from the Labour Party, this was solely done so that Starmer could avoid a rebellion by over a 100 of his MP's, who had publicly declared they were going to vote with the SNP. It was straight out of the Boris Johnson playbook and should be called out for what it is, if this is an example of how Starmer intends using his power if he becomes PM. There was uproar (quite rightly) all over the House and the Speaker said he would allow the SNP an SO24, to debate the motion again (something which Hoyle has incredibly renegaded on yesterday). Hoyle stood up in the House and said that the reasons for his decision were because he believed that the current rules were archaic and unfair. And (this is the important bit) Hoyle then went back to the House the next day, with a completely different story, claiming that the reason for his decision was to protect MP's safety. In mine and many, many other people's minds he had brought the House into disrepute and there has since been (quite rightly) widespread calls for him to resign. The real kicker, is that they hadn't thought their new story through ... If the House HAD have voted for an unconditional ceasefire, who was he suggesting the terrorist threat would have come from, the bloody Israelis? It's pathetic. And as a direct result of his comments, he's given right wing nut jobs like Braverman, Anderson and Jenrick a new platform to spew their racist rhetoric and in the last few days we've seen over a 300% increase in reports of Islamaphobia. And rags like the Guardian and numerous Labour MP's have been complicit in establishing this new narrative, to cover up the dreadful way that Hoyle and Starmer behaved. The most worrying thing is that it's been done completely in plain sight and so many of the public dont even realise. If this is what we're going to get as an alternative to the Tories, then you can count me out.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Feb 27, 2024 12:35:54 GMT
What I wanted to know then Paul ( I just have not had time to keep up) ....what was the link that Hoyle wanted us to make? There wasn't a safety issue, even the Met said they didn't know what Hoyle was on about. The previous day, the Speaker had extremely controversially, gone against protocol and allowed Labour to make an ammendment to an SNP motion, after receiving pressure from the Labour Party, this was solely done so that Starmer could avoid a rebellion by over a 100 of his MP's, who had publicly declared they were going to vote with the SNP. It was straight out of the Boris Johnson playbook and should be called out for what it is, if this is an example of how Starmer intends using his power if he becomes PM. There were was uproar (quite rightly) all over the House and the Speaker said he would allow the SNP an SO24, to debate the motion again (something which Hoyle has incredibly renegaded on yesterday). Hoyle stood up in the House and said that the reasons for his decision were because he believed that the current rules were archaic and unfair. And (this is the important bit) Hoyle then went back to the House the next day, with a completely different story, claiming that the reason for his decision was to protect MP's safety. In mine and many, many other people's views he had brought the House into disrepute and there has since been (quite rightly) widespread calls for him to resign. The real kicker, is that they hadn't thought their new story through ... If the House HAD have voted for an unconditional ceasefire, who was he suggesting the terrorist threat would have come from, the bloody Israelis? It's pathetic. And as a direct result of his comments, he's given right wing nut jobs like Braverman, Anderson and Jenrick a new platform to spew their racist rhetoric and in the last few days we've seen over a 300% increase in reports of Islamaphobia. And rags like the Guardian and numerous Labour MP's have been complicit in establishing this new narrative, to cover up the dreadful way that Hoyle and Starmer behaved. Thanks Paul , I knew most of the background but just couldn't work out where the safety aspect was .... so I thought I'd missed something Mind you... I still don't know what the link was from the amendments that he selected to MP safety....in HIS mind
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 27, 2024 12:39:18 GMT
There wasn't a safety issue, even the Met said they didn't know what Hoyle was on about. The previous day, the Speaker had extremely controversially, gone against protocol and allowed Labour to make an ammendment to an SNP motion, after receiving pressure from the Labour Party, this was solely done so that Starmer could avoid a rebellion by over a 100 of his MP's, who had publicly declared they were going to vote with the SNP. It was straight out of the Boris Johnson playbook and should be called out for what it is, if this is an example of how Starmer intends using his power if he becomes PM. There were was uproar (quite rightly) all over the House and the Speaker said he would allow the SNP an SO24, to debate the motion again (something which Hoyle has incredibly renegaded on yesterday). Hoyle stood up in the House and said that the reasons for his decision were because he believed that the current rules were archaic and unfair. And (this is the important bit) Hoyle then went back to the House the next day, with a completely different story, claiming that the reason for his decision was to protect MP's safety. In mine and many, many other people's views he had brought the House into disrepute and there has since been (quite rightly) widespread calls for him to resign. The real kicker, is that they hadn't thought their new story through ... If the House HAD have voted for an unconditional ceasefire, who was he suggesting the terrorist threat would have come from, the bloody Israelis? It's pathetic. And as a direct result of his comments, he's given right wing nut jobs like Braverman, Anderson and Jenrick a new platform to spew their racist rhetoric and in the last few days we've seen over a 300% increase in reports of Islamaphobia. And rags like the Guardian and numerous Labour MP's have been complicit in establishing this new narrative, to cover up the dreadful way that Hoyle and Starmer behaved. Thanks Paul , I knew most of the background but just couldn't work out where the safety aspect was .... so I thought I'd missed something Mind you... I still don't know what the link was from the amendments that he selected to MP safety....in HIS mind And Starmer's ...
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Feb 27, 2024 12:55:14 GMT
Of course BJR there is an alternative to the above which is the action was followed due to MP threats. If that was the case though, would you:
- Not make this clear when you broke convention rather than in the aftermath upon receiving backlash. - If you're caving into intimidation that usually means you do what you're intimidated to do. Not the opposite. - If it was for MP safety then you wouldn't say an hour later that you deeply regret your decision and it was the wrong decision on hindsight. - Would you even mention MP safety at all if it was genuine? Thats pretty much saying "were breaking the rules because we were threatened" and an admission that intimidation does work and would just further it. - A conservstive party which is polling 20 points behind labour and was accused by Starmer of sleeze and corruption under Boris. Surely you'd attack labour with the same jibes after what Starmer did and would call for the speaker to be sacked. But instead they're defending the speaker.
All part of the establishment playbook in my opinion. Very convenient all this transpired when Starmer (Pro establishment candidate) was about to be defied by a number of MPs in his party which could have threatened his leadership.
I imagine had it been Corbyn doing this sleeze when he got attacked in public or was being used as target practice the conservative and media's response would have been completely different.
It's all a farce in my opinion and a further attempt by the establishment to try and paint anyone opposed to 10s of thousands of women and children dying as terrorists. The only terrorist sympathisers in my eyes are those pushing for more innocent civillians to die.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Feb 27, 2024 13:08:08 GMT
Of course BJR there is an alternative to the above which is the action was followed due to MP threats. If that was the case though, would you: - Not make this clear when you broke convention rather than in the aftermath upon receiving backlash. - If you're caving into intimidation that usually means you do what you're intimidated to do. Not the opposite. - If it was for MP safety then you wouldn't say an hour later that you deeply regret your decision and it was the wrong decision on hindsight. - Would you even mention MP safety at all if it was genuine? Thats pretty much saying "were breaking the rules because we were threatened" and an admission that intimidation does work and would just further it. - A conservstive party which is polling 20 points behind labour and was accused by Starmer of sleeze and corruption under Boris. Surely you'd attack labour with the same jibes after what Starmer did and would call for the speaker to be sacked. But instead they're defending the speaker. All part of the establishment playbook in my opinion. Very convenient all this transpired when Starmer (Pro establishment candidate) was about to be defied by a number of MPs in his party which could have threatened his leadership. I imagine had it been Corbyn doing this sleeze when he got attacked in public or was being used as target practice the conservative and media's response would have been completely different. It's all a farce in my opinion and a further attempt by the establishment to try and paint anyone opposed to 10s of thousands of women and children dying as terrorists. The only terrorist sympathisers in my eyes are those pushing for more innocent civillians to die. Thanks Gawa... I'm probably bring really thick here....I still don't see the link that Hoyle( and Starmer!) made between the choice of amendment and MP safety?... If I said I'm going to buy a red car because I like going to Italy for my holidays, you'd ask " What is the link?".....what in HOYLE'S explanation is the link?
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 27, 2024 13:30:43 GMT
Of course BJR there is an alternative to the above which is the action was followed due to MP threats. If that was the case though, would you: - Not make this clear when you broke convention rather than in the aftermath upon receiving backlash. - If you're caving into intimidation that usually means you do what you're intimidated to do. Not the opposite. - If it was for MP safety then you wouldn't say an hour later that you deeply regret your decision and it was the wrong decision on hindsight. - Would you even mention MP safety at all if it was genuine? Thats pretty much saying "were breaking the rules because we were threatened" and an admission that intimidation does work and would just further it. - A conservstive party which is polling 20 points behind labour and was accused by Starmer of sleeze and corruption under Boris. Surely you'd attack labour with the same jibes after what Starmer did and would call for the speaker to be sacked. But instead they're defending the speaker. All part of the establishment playbook in my opinion. Very convenient all this transpired when Starmer (Pro establishment candidate) was about to be defied by a number of MPs in his party which could have threatened his leadership. I imagine had it been Corbyn doing this sleeze when he got attacked in public or was being used as target practice the conservative and media's response would have been completely different. It's all a farce in my opinion and a further attempt by the establishment to try and paint anyone opposed to 10s of thousands of women and children dying as terrorists. The only terrorist sympathisers in my eyes are those pushing for more innocent civillians to die. Thanks Gawa... I'm probably bring really thick here....I still don't see the link that Hoyle( and Starmer!) made between the choice of amendment and MP safety?... If I said I'm going to buy a red car because I like going to Italy for my holidays, you'd ask " What is the link?".....what in HOYLE'S explanation is the link?
There simply isn't a link BJR.
They were under immense pressure and concocted a bullshit excuse on the hoof, which, on reflection, they've realised, doesn't hold any water at all.
However, amongst the smoke of the fallout of the whole sorry episode and with the help of friends in the media, they've managed to get the public to focus on a completely different narrative and deflect attention away from their original indiscretions.
It is the very definition of gaslighting and it absolutely stinks to high heaven.
I don't think I've ever had such a low opinion of British politics, as the one I have right now.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Feb 27, 2024 13:41:32 GMT
Of course BJR there is an alternative to the above which is the action was followed due to MP threats. If that was the case though, would you: - Not make this clear when you broke convention rather than in the aftermath upon receiving backlash. - If you're caving into intimidation that usually means you do what you're intimidated to do. Not the opposite. - If it was for MP safety then you wouldn't say an hour later that you deeply regret your decision and it was the wrong decision on hindsight. - Would you even mention MP safety at all if it was genuine? Thats pretty much saying "were breaking the rules because we were threatened" and an admission that intimidation does work and would just further it. - A conservstive party which is polling 20 points behind labour and was accused by Starmer of sleeze and corruption under Boris. Surely you'd attack labour with the same jibes after what Starmer did and would call for the speaker to be sacked. But instead they're defending the speaker. All part of the establishment playbook in my opinion. Very convenient all this transpired when Starmer (Pro establishment candidate) was about to be defied by a number of MPs in his party which could have threatened his leadership. I imagine had it been Corbyn doing this sleeze when he got attacked in public or was being used as target practice the conservative and media's response would have been completely different. It's all a farce in my opinion and a further attempt by the establishment to try and paint anyone opposed to 10s of thousands of women and children dying as terrorists. The only terrorist sympathisers in my eyes are those pushing for more innocent civillians to die. Thanks Gawa... I'm probably bring really thick here....I still don't see the link that Hoyle( and Starmer!) made between the choice of amendment and MP safety?... If I said I'm going to buy a red car because I like going to Italy for my holidays, you'd ask " What is the link?".....what in HOYLE'S explanation is the link? The link is what he's implying. He's implying that he broke convention due to MP safety. You're right that it doesn't make sense because if you're breaking convention due to caving into intimidation then you usually do what those intimidating you want you to do (vote for the SNP motion) not the opposite. The majority of our public won't know what an opposition day is, they won't know Hoyle used different reasoning before changing it to MP safety hours later, they won't know what the difference was between SNp motion and Labour ammendment, they won't know how many opposition days SNP gets, they won't know Starmer was on phone with Israeli president before this happened, they won't know that 40% of the Labour cabinet received donations from Israel lobbyists, they won't know about the significant donations the conservative party get from Israel lobbyists. Joe Public will read "Labour broke convention due to vote for ceasefire after threats to MP safety" And the link for those people is in the headline. People who wanted a ceasefire must have threatened Labour MPs causing them to do this. Its those Muslim extremists. And then 30p Lee and Co add fuel to the fire by then further implying that Sadiq Khan has no control of London and its ran by islamists who have control of him. Or that all these areas in Brimingham and London are not safe for white people etc... You're right that when you go through the fine details there isn't a link that makes sense for labour to break convention due to mp safety. But if a headline can be made which suggests that enough then all you need is the imagination of the public to connect the dots and think what you want them to think.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Feb 27, 2024 14:02:06 GMT
Thanks Gawa... I'm probably bring really thick here....I still don't see the link that Hoyle( and Starmer!) made between the choice of amendment and MP safety?... If I said I'm going to buy a red car because I like going to Italy for my holidays, you'd ask " What is the link?".....what in HOYLE'S explanation is the link?
There simply isn't a link BJR.
They were under immense pressure and concocted a bullshit excuse on the hoof, which, on reflection, they've realised, doesn't hold any water at all.
However, amongst the smoke of the fallout of the whole sorry episode and with the help of friends in the media, they've managed to get the public to focus on a completely different narrative and deflect attention away from their original indiscretions.
It is the very definition of gaslighting and it absolutely stinks to high heaven.
I don't think I've ever had such a low opinion of British politics, as the one I have right now.
And it's not about party politics or anything this either. Not as if we are labour supporters putting the boot into tories or vice versa. You and I have criticised the tories for a while now but for the most part we also try to hold labour to the same standards. Hench calling out this, what we see as bullshit. MP safety should be taken very seriously and nobody's life should be at risk or threat but its also just as important to be genuine and not gaslight too. Footballers receive hate mail all the time online but it doesn't mean they're neccesarily genuinely at risk. There's a difference betweenna facebook message from an angry teenager and someone actually threatening you with intent. There probably are MPs out there which have received actual threats too. But is it any different or substantially more than times gone by? No conventions were broken when David Amas was stabbed to death. None were broken when soldiers shot at corbyn. Nothings ever been done about MPs always being at risk in NI. Nothing changed when Jo Cox died. What makes this so much worse than all the above that convention needed breaking? Or is it simply just an excuse for labour to save face hench why MP safety wasn't mentioned until after when Hoyle received huge backlash for his decision. Everything I've read/listened to makes me feel that MP safety was an after thought used as an excuse. Because like BJR said, what's the link? How does Hoyle doing what he did protect MPs in anyway or improve their safety? It doesn't. If anything it puts them further at risk.
|
|
|
Post by suck_the_mop. on Feb 27, 2024 14:04:38 GMT
And all this has now made it a definite that my vote will have NONE OF THE ABOVE written on it.. as i have said before they are all as bad as each other and once in power are worse.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 27, 2024 14:07:39 GMT
Thanks Gawa... I'm probably bring really thick here....I still don't see the link that Hoyle( and Starmer!) made between the choice of amendment and MP safety?... If I said I'm going to buy a red car because I like going to Italy for my holidays, you'd ask " What is the link?".....what in HOYLE'S explanation is the link? The link is what he's implying. He's implying that he broke convention due to MP safety. You're right that it doesn't make sense because if you're breaking convention due to caving into intimidation then you usually do what those intimidating you want you to do (vote for the SNP motion) not the opposite. The majority of our public won't know what an opposition day is, they won't know Hoyle used different reasoning before changing it to MP safety hours later, they won't know what the difference was between SNp motion and Labour ammendment, they won't know how many opposition days SNP gets, they won't know Starmer was on phone with Israeli president before this happened, they won't know that 40% of the Labour cabinet received donations from Israel lobbyists, they won't know about the significant donations the conservative party get from Israel lobbyists. Joe Public will read "Labour broke convention due to vote for ceasefire after threats to MP safety" And the link for those people is in the headline. People who wanted a ceasefire must have threatened Labour MPs causing them to do this. Its those Muslim extremists. And then 30p Lee and Co add fuel to the fire by then further implying that Sadiq Khan has no control of London and its ran by islamists who have control of him. Or that all these areas in Brimingham and London are not safe for white people etc... You're right that when you go through the fine details there isn't a link that makes sense for labour to break convention due to mp safety. But if a headline can be made which suggests that enough then all you need is the imagination of the public to connect the dots and think what you want them to think.
Perfectly articulated.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Feb 27, 2024 14:29:21 GMT
And all this has now made it a definite that my vote will have NONE OF THE ABOVE written on it.. as i have said before they are all as bad as each other and once in power are worse. It's a bit of a shit sandwich 🥪. It's demoralising though to think whoever you vote probably will make little to no difference in the grand scheme.
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Feb 27, 2024 14:36:57 GMT
And all this has now made it a definite that my vote will have NONE OF THE ABOVE written on it.. as i have said before they are all as bad as each other and once in power are worse. It's a bit of a shit sandwich 🥪. It's demoralising though to think whoever you vote probably will make little to no difference in the grand scheme. ![](//storage.proboards.com/800541/thumbnailer/MxjDZmEUwZPbhFvVPXCi.png)
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Feb 27, 2024 15:12:58 GMT
Look on the bright side We’re only up to are necks in shit
Are colonial cousins have a choice of Biden and trump There going to need snorkels
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Feb 28, 2024 11:29:59 GMT
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Feb 28, 2024 13:49:37 GMT
Another day, another Jewish member of the Labour party suspended.....
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Feb 28, 2024 13:56:51 GMT
Another day, another Jewish member of the Labour party suspended..... Reading his statement he actually sounds like a brilliant Councillor and the sort of person you want in your constituency. Obviously though this is just reading his own words so understand it may be bias. The fact this jewish man has regularly attending mosques and synagogues though shows he truly takes his job seriously and trys to represent all his constituents and doesn't shy away. A real loss to the Labour party based on that statement. Maybe there's more to it of course but from what I've read this seems a grave error.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Feb 28, 2024 13:59:23 GMT
And another one.
|
|
|
Post by fullmetaljacket on Feb 28, 2024 14:10:51 GMT
Starmers a fucking weasel.
|
|
|
Post by adri2008 on Feb 28, 2024 15:56:50 GMT
I don't understand how Starmer has managed to get tied in knots over this. Just explain that being anti Israeli government doesn't mean anti-semitism, it's not complicated.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Feb 28, 2024 16:10:42 GMT
I don't understand how Starmer has managed to get tied in knots over this. Just explain that being anti Israeli government doesn't mean anti-semitism, it's not complicated. It is when one of your main donors is the Israel Lobby.
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Feb 28, 2024 16:15:31 GMT
I don't understand how Starmer has managed to get tied in knots over this. Just explain that being anti Israeli government doesn't mean anti-semitism, it's not complicated. That's the problem though, being anti-Israel and anti-Zionist does get you labelled as an antisemite these days. That's what the bad faith actors of the last few years were aiming for........
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2024 17:19:21 GMT
What is the process for this? Surely, removing someone from an elected post should require more than just a simple “sod them off” from Starmer or Sunak. I’d have thought that there would be some sort of committee meeting and a group decision.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Feb 28, 2024 17:46:25 GMT
What is the process for this? Surely, removing someone from an elected post should require more than just a simple “sod them off” from Starmer or Sunak. I’d have thought that there would be some sort of committee meeting and a group decision. Not too sure it was Labour Lambeth Group which made the decision or ifninstructuon came from above. Whether its the head Councillor Claire Holland or someone else who makes the decision not too sure. Presume the councillors remain as councillors but as independants while suspended.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Feb 29, 2024 0:46:07 GMT
What I wanted to know then Paul ( I just have not had time to keep up) ....what was the link that Hoyle wanted us to make? There wasn't a safety issue, even the Met said they didn't know what Hoyle was on about. The previous day, the Speaker had extremely controversially, gone against protocol and allowed Labour to make an ammendment to an SNP motion, after receiving pressure from the Labour Party, this was solely done so that Starmer could avoid a rebellion by over a 100 of his MP's, who had publicly declared they were going to vote with the SNP. It was straight out of the Boris Johnson playbook and should be called out for what it is, if this is an example of how Starmer intends using his power if he becomes PM. There was uproar (quite rightly) all over the House and the Speaker said he would allow the SNP an SO24, to debate the motion again (something which Hoyle has incredibly renegaded on yesterday). Hoyle stood up in the House and said that the reasons for his decision were because he believed that the current rules were archaic and unfair. And (this is the important bit) Hoyle then went back to the House the next day, with a completely different story, claiming that the reason for his decision was to protect MP's safety. In mine and many, many other people's minds he had brought the House into disrepute and there has since been (quite rightly) widespread calls for him to resign. The real kicker, is that they hadn't thought their new story through ... If the House HAD have voted for an unconditional ceasefire, who was he suggesting the terrorist threat would have come from, the bloody Israelis? It's pathetic. And as a direct result of his comments, he's given right wing nut jobs like Braverman, Anderson and Jenrick a new platform to spew their racist rhetoric and in the last few days we've seen over a 300% increase in reports of Islamaphobia. And rags like the Guardian and numerous Labour MP's have been complicit in establishing this new narrative, to cover up the dreadful way that Hoyle and Starmer behaved. The most worrying thing is that it's been done completely in plain sight and so many of the public dont even realise. If this is what we're going to get as an alternative to the Tories, then you can count me out. Peter Oborne today explaining it far better than I ever could ...
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Feb 29, 2024 12:42:45 GMT
It's nearly as if Starmer has only done so well because of everyone's discontent for the tories. There was me thinking it was because he was a great leader with great policies who is going to get this country back to square one.
|
|
|
Post by backintheday on Feb 29, 2024 13:38:21 GMT
I know it may seem random but I keep having visions of Neil kinnock with this. Ps I’m apolitical - all (well most)a bunch of tossers who don’t actually represent their constituents just tow the party line
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Feb 29, 2024 13:54:53 GMT
I know it may seem random but I keep having visions of Neil kinnock with this. Ps I’m apolitical - all (well most)a bunch of tossers who don’t actually represent their constituents just tow the party line Kinnock lost a 16 point lead if I remember rightly? He was far more personable than Starmer as well although Starmer will have the backing of some of the press come election time I reckon. It's not beyond the realms of possibility that it ends up being tighter than predicted, but barring some major events the Tories are surely toast?
|
|
|
Post by backintheday on Feb 29, 2024 14:14:36 GMT
You're probably correct in that Prestwich. It will be interesting to view all the party manifesto's when the time comes for the general election. All the bye elections have usually been a protest vote in the past (low turnouts etc), but this time I think the tories have all but shit it. Unfortunately non of the parties at this moment in time are lacking a decent plan for the future - it strikes me as reaction policy statements. Let's wait and see what is down on paper as their final offerings to not do what they promise. Cynical I know but maturity has taught me that 'all. that glitters is not gold'..
|
|
|
Post by Kpsje on Mar 1, 2024 8:44:14 GMT
Starmers a fucking weasel. ![](https://www.cryan.com/daily/2016/CarsonYes.jpg)
|
|
|
Post by phileetin on Mar 1, 2024 10:00:06 GMT
Labour's actions obviously have a purpose. I'm not saying your theory is wrong just that it's more likely dictated to appease their traditional base rather than trying to influence a handful of seats at best where the Muslim Vote may make a difference. Its not as if the Muslim Vote will switch to Conservatives I have to see any Political Party, UK MSM or posters on here say anything in support of Hamas, maybe you could explain what you mean I agree US is dictating Starmer and Government Policy towards Israel which far from Anti. i suspect more than a handful of seats would be at risk in London , Bradford, Birmingham , leicester , peterborough etc if an independant pro hamas led palestine candidate was to enter the fray eg dianne abbot, corbyn
Looks like one of those " handful of seats " has been lost already ?
And its not in one of the areas i specifically mentioned either , although it should have been high on the list given the issues referrred to previously in the press.
Interesting comments/ analysis on GB news this morning , Michael Portillo ( who i think is a fair minded tory ) said he thought the genie was out of the bottle . i not sure what he was implying but i personally believe that this will embolden ethnic communities to move away from Labour to a candidate who more closely reflects their traditional values rather than just their names.
|
|