UK Local Elections 2021

[Seanchaidh]

It doesn't have to. But then you look at https://twitter.com/_LFI and wouldn't you know it, it's hardly anything other than whinging over Hamas rockets.

Hmm.

Is Labour Friends of Israel an Israeli embassy front?

Undercover Al Jazeera film shows depth of UK politicians' ties to Israel.

electronicintifada.net

Labour's Lisa Nandy is an enemy of Palestinian rights

Why won't the party demand that Israel be held accountable for its crimes?

electronicintifada.net

 

[Gordon_4]

How is the Guardian not left wing? I've never seen anything on it right of center, and most of its writers would easily fall onto the left.

For your education:

The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country; The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country; The Times is read by the people who actually do run the country; the Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country; the Financial Times is read by people who own the country; the Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country, and the Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.

 

[Hawki]

For your education:

The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country; The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country; The Times is read by the people who actually do run the country; the Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country; the Financial Times is read by people who own the country; the Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country, and the Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.

You forgot The Sun.

And the tits.

 

[Trunkage]

For your education:

The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country; The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country; The Times is read by the people who actually do run the country; the Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country; the Financial Times is read by people who own the country; the Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country, and the Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.

That's pretty good... but where is the BBC?

 

[Trunkage]

You forgot The Sun.

And the tits.

We all know what really controls the country, do we The Sun

 

[Gordon_4]

You forgot The Sun.

And the tits.

I figured that would go without saying, Bernard.

 

[Gordon_4]

That's pretty good... but where is the BBC?

Being blackmailed by Sir Humphrey Appleby.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Sorry: Metro is available in a limited number of urban areas. Fact remains that it's not left-wing.

It's at least left leaning if not fully the people must own the tools of production left wing.

Andrew Neil worked for the BBC, as one of its highest-profile political faces, for 25 years. Kuenssberg still does, and is probably the single most recognisable political face of the BBC today. Both are obviously pretty committed Tories.

Because he's worked there consistently and was given raises over his time there likely due to loyalty to the BBC
Kuenssberg maybe just does a good job at her work.
The BBC has in the past had on air broadcasters while on air publicly state they would be voting Labour and has been fine on supposedly serious shows having presenters fairly openly mock certain people they had on and no I don't mean comedy shows. Then the apology boiled down to "Sorry you were offended" not sorry for mocking the people and things and acting like almost a silly school child on air.

Not quite. "ideas, political power, industry and empire: Britain, 1745-1901" are part of the key stage 3 curriculum, with one non-statutory example cited being the transatlantic slave trade (Source).

Corbyn's proposal was quite obviously about increasing its visibility and presence in schools, and making sure kids were more likely to learn about it. Nothing there about it being obligatory across all key stages.

Except that wasn't what was said by the Labour minister in the common previously before the reply I showed.

As for the proposal it's a lot of flowery language not a lot of hard facts and in part comes off as for lack of a more precise way to put it "We're the reason Wakanda isn't real and should feel bad about it." Considering various parts of said history are already taught it shows a degree of ignorance in the proposal too

"Should anyone try", which they weren't. So, defending it against nobody. How very noble.

Making sure no-one carried on with the ideas some seemed to have got and seemed fairly willing to carry out in other parts of the country.

....And nothing about the proportion of female candidates.

Look, you were the one who brought up the "proportion of female candidates" line. You can't now turn around and say that part of it isn't relevant, when you find out that it was the right-wingers who started banging on about it.

No just the general issue and presentation that the conservative party was against women in general hence a more specific example was shot back with to question the narrative.

 

[Seanchaidh]

That's pretty good... but where is the BBC?

between the tits?

 

[Silvanus]

It's at least left leaning if not fully the people must own the tools of production left wing.

Absolute bollocks. It's centrist at the very most.

Because he's worked there consistently and was given raises over his time there likely due to loyalty to the BBC
Kuenssberg maybe just does a good job at her work.
The BBC has in the past had on air broadcasters while on air publicly state they would be voting Labour and has been fine on supposedly serious shows having presenters fairly openly mock certain people they had on and no I don't mean comedy shows. Then the apology boiled down to "Sorry you were offended" not sorry for mocking the people and things and acting like almost a silly school child on air.

Uh-huh, and they've had people mock left-wing figures and issue non-apologies there, as well. I can't find anything about BBC broadcasters publicly stating they would vote Labour-- I assume that was under Blair, when Labour was economically on the right.

As for Kuenssberg: would you consider it "doing a good job" to promote Conservative economic policy live on-air? Is it "doing a good job" to lie about a Labour activist assaulting a Conservative staffer? Why do you think a supposedly impartial figure would be invited to speak at the Conservative Party Conference, or feature in Conservative Party online election ads?

Except that wasn't what was said by the Labour minister in the common previously before the reply I showed.

As for the proposal it's a lot of flowery language not a lot of hard facts and in part comes off as for lack of a more precise way to put it "We're the reason Wakanda isn't real and should feel bad about it." Considering various parts of said history are already taught it shows a degree of ignorance in the proposal too

I think it's fairly obvious you don't have a clue what the proposal actually is. You thought it was about making it mandatory, including all classes.

No just the general issue and presentation that the conservative party was against women in general hence a more specific example was shot back with to question the narrative.

OK. So you actually don't have a problem with promoting a 50% ratio of female candidates... just so long as the opposing party has, at some point in the past, criticised your views in general.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Absolute bollocks. It's centrist at the very most.

Nope it's maybe centre left

Uh-huh, and they've had people mock left-wing figures and issue non-apologies there, as well. I can't find anything about BBC broadcasters publicly stating they would vote Labour-- I assume that was under Blair, when Labour was economically on the right.

Yes just not generally on news or serious topic coverage lol. Normally it's panel shows where that's more expected. Also yes it was under Blair lol

As for Kuenssberg: would you consider it "doing a good job" to promote Conservative economic policy live on-air? Is it "doing a good job" to lie about a Labour activist assaulting a Conservative staffer? Why do you think a supposedly impartial figure would be invited to speak at the Conservative Party Conference, or feature in Conservative Party online election ads?

Kuenssberg as your source shows was saying about the massive scale of borrowing that's happened in part thanks to the pandemic. It's true the level of debt now due to borrowing is huge. Isn't it something like the highest debt the UK has had since after World War 2? That's not promoting Tory economic policy it's stating a damn fact. How people choose to get out of it would be.

As for the Punch
1) It was her saying so on Twitter not BBC news
2) If we held everyone to even half the standard you want her held to you'd decimate the BBC newsroom
3) She even posted a correction later when she got to see a full video.


Which is a step above what some of those who have spread misinformation in the past have done

I think it's fairly obvious you don't have a clue what the proposal actually is. You thought it was about making it mandatory, including all classes.

Ah yes because the words mandatory in the proposal means nothing right?
Honestly Corbyn nor whomever else worked on this proposal seemed to have a clue what it actually would be. As I pointed out the proposal is so vague already in what it wants and ignorant of already existing things. It just seems like an easy proposal to look good without any of the actual detail filled in

OK. So you actually don't have a problem with promoting a 50% ratio of female candidates... just so long as the opposing party has, at some point in the past, criticised your views in general.

I'd say when it's a present line of attack to bring up that specific is a fair line of defence.

 

[Baffle]

As for the Punch
1) It was her saying so on Twitter not BBC news
2) If we held everyone to even half the standard you want her held to you'd decimate the BBC newsroom
3) She even posted a correction later when she got to see a full video.


Which is a step above what some of those who have spread misinformation in the past have done

One would expect one of the best-paid journalists in the country not to spread misinformation is the first place. I mean, how is it different to telling everyone the guy down the road is a nonce, then mumbling that maybe he isn't once the crowd has dispersed? The damage is done, and I assume you aren't too stupid to see that.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

One would expect one of the best-paid journalists in the country not to spread misinformation is the first place. I mean, how is it different to telling everyone the guy down the road is a nonce, then mumbling that maybe he isn't once the crowd has dispersed? The damage is done, and I assume you aren't too stupid to see that.

Fun fact Alan Davies basically did that on twitter before.
He wasn't fired or anything. He was sued by the person for defamation (along with a number of others who also made the same claim) and he lost.

If you want verified and checked news you'd probably do better following the actual agency accounts not just a journalist who will likely tweet about stories and claims they're looking into without being 100% sure of the truth because it's often a developing / breaking story they're bringing up.

 

[Baffle]

a journalist who will likely tweet about stories and claims they're looking into without being 100% sure of the truth because it's often a developing / breaking story they're bringing up.

So someone still operating in their capacity as a journalist. It's not about what I want in my news, it's about how journalists should behave when pretending they're being journalists.

 

[Silvanus]

Nope it's maybe centre left

Bollocks.

Yes just not generally on news or serious topic coverage lol. Normally it's panel shows where that's more expected. Also yes it was under Blair lol

Uh-huh, and presenters didn't say "we're voting Labour" under the auspices of a news broadcast, either.

And Blair isn't left-wing.

Kuenssberg as your source shows was saying about the massive scale of borrowing that's happened in part thanks to the pandemic. It's true the level of debt now due to borrowing is huge. Isn't it something like the highest debt the UK has had since after World War 2? That's not promoting Tory economic policy it's stating a damn fact. How people choose to get out of it would be.

The notion that national debt is so crushingly massive and important that austerity is unavoidable and necessary is a politcal judgement call, in line with Tory/ Friedmanist economic policy. It is not a "damn fact". Its a right-wing economic dogma, long disowned and distanced by actual economists.

As for the Punch
1) It was her saying so on Twitter not BBC news
2) If we held everyone to even half the standard you want her held to you'd decimate the BBC newsroom
3) She even posted a correction later when she got to see a full video.

Oh, she corrected her lie after the truth already came out! Why exactly was she repeating an unverified falsehood in the first place?

Ah yes because the words mandatory in the proposal means nothing right?
Honestly Corbyn nor whomever else worked on this proposal seemed to have a clue what it actually would be. As I pointed out the proposal is so vague already in what it wants and ignorant of already existing things. It just seems like an easy proposal to look good without any of the actual detail filled in

Please quote me the section of the proposal using the word "mandatory". Let's look at the context together.

I'd say when it's a present line of attack to bring up that specific is a fair line of defence.

So, as I said, you don't have a problem with minimum requirements for proportions of female candidates. Just so long as the opposite party has criticised something vaguely related to sexism in the past.

Of course, the Tories have also criticised Labour for sexism. So... you'd also have no problem with Labour introducing minimums for female candidate numbers as well?

Or is this all just empty guff after all?

 

[Agema]

Or is this all just empty guff after all?

Yes.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Bollocks.

Yes a lot of the time the paper is lol

Uh-huh, and presenters didn't say "we're voting Labour" under the auspices of a news broadcast, either.

And Blair isn't left-wing.

Yes they did, I saw it happen!

The notion that national debt is so crushingly massive and important that austerity is unavoidable and necessary is a politcal judgement call, in line with Tory/ Friedmanist economic policy. It is not a "damn fact". Its a right-wing economic dogma, long disowned and distanced by actual economists.

Which isn't what she said she stated the debt was the highest it's been since World War II which is categorically IS.

Oh, she corrected her lie after the truth already came out! Why exactly was she repeating an unverified falsehood in the first place?

Because it's her twitter account where to talks about what she's looking into or things interesting her? Are you saying she (and all other reporters) should be held to the same standard on twitter as their publications are? If so a LOT of reporters will have a lot to answer for lol. In her case far less than many of her peers.

Please quote me the section of the proposal using the word "mandatory". Let's look at the context together.

They're already doing it in Wales

Black history lessons to become mandatory in Welsh schools

Government says learning about BAME histories will help youngsters become ‘ethical and informed’

www.theguardian.com

As for England

Calls grow for black history to be taught to all English school pupils

Campaigners are collecting support for open letter and want to meet education secretary

www.theguardian.com

So, as I said, you don't have a problem with minimum requirements for proportions of female candidates. Just so long as the opposite party has criticised something vaguely related to sexism in the past.

Of course, the Tories have also criticised Labour for sexism. So... you'd also have no problem with Labour introducing minimums for female candidate numbers as well?

Or is this all just empty guff after all?

The entire thing is empty guff and Labour were criticised as pointed out before for using women candidates as little more than window dressing. It was Thatcher when asked how it felt to be the first women PM responded she saw little achievement in it and would prefer to be remembered as the first Scientist to become PM because her gender was of no real consequence she was born that way but she chose to become a scientist.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

So someone still operating in their capacity as a journalist. It's not about what I want in my news, it's about how journalists should behave when pretending they're being journalists.

You really want journalists held to publication standard on twitter? really?

 

[Baffle]

You really want journalists held to publication standard on twitter? really?

Do I think something with the Twitter handle 'bbclaurak' and a blue tick should be considered to be acting in her professional role as a BBC journalist? That's what you're asking? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!


Edit: Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! A ludicrous display last night.

 

[Silvanus]

Yes they did, I saw it happen!

Wouldn't be the first time you've hallucinated. Or just made shit up.

Let's have a citation, then.

Which isn't what she said she stated the debt was the highest it's been since World War II which is categorically IS.

....she then went on to say that austerity was necessary to tackle the debt.

Because it's her twitter account where to talks about what she's looking into or things interesting her? Are you saying she (and all other reporters) should be held to the same standard on twitter as their publications are? If so a LOT of reporters will have a lot to answer for lol. In her case far less than many of her peers.

If you work in a public capacity as a representative of a media company, then your social media postings are part of that.

Especially since she has BBC in her handle. She's representing them when she publicly speaks under the name of their organisation, yes, fucking obviously.

They're already doing it in Wales

Black history lessons to become mandatory in Welsh schools

Government says learning about BAME histories will help youngsters become ‘ethical and informed’

www.theguardian.com

Ah, so nothing to do with the proposal in question, then. OK.

Calls grow for black history to be taught to all English school pupils

Campaigners are collecting support for open letter and want to meet education secretary

www.theguardian.com

Ah, so not a proposal from Labour at all, then. OK.

Still waiting for the direct use of the word "mandatory" you claimed was in Labour's proposal. Let's look at the context together.

The entire thing is empty guff and Labour were criticised as pointed out before for using women candidates as little more than window dressing. It was Thatcher when asked how it felt to be the first women PM responded she saw little achievement in it and would prefer to be remembered as the first Scientist to become PM because her gender was of no real consequence she was born that way but she chose to become a scientist.

More irrelevant rambling.

Answer the question. You objected to a party setting proportions on the number of female candidates. Then, when it turned out the Tories did it, you said it was justified because Labour had criticised them for sexism.

So, since the Tories have also criticised Labour for sexism, does that mean Labour would be justified in doing it as well? Why did you whine about it at all if you don't care when the right do it? This is all sheer transparent hypocrisy.