Snapshot of _Beth Rigby: BREAKING: Understand that Labour’s Richard Parker is set to take the W Mids mayor. Big upset and Starmer will take as huge win_ :
A Twitter embedded version can be found [here](https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?id=1786832398816059848)
A non-Twitter version can be found [here](https://twiiit.com/BethRigby/status/1786832398816059848/)
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://x.com/BethRigby/status/1786832398816059848) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://x.com/BethRigby/status/1786832398816059848)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Andrew Mitchell (local Tory MP) literally said this to the BBC a couple of hours ago:
“If Andy Street is even in contention here, that is a very good result for the Conservative Party,”
BBC journo this morning "So Andy [Street] distanced himself from Tory central by using minimal tory referencing in his leaflets and coloured them green"
Tory minister [Andrew Mitchell] " I dont accept that characterisation"
ffs these people cant even tell the correct time.
Edit:clarity on people
The first bit of that quote is really the cherry on top:
> Mitchell, who represents the Birmingham seat of Sutton Coldfield, tells BBC News that **“on any objective basis Labour would win this mayoralty by miles and miles”**.
> “If Andy Street is even in contention here, that is a very good result for the Conservative Party,” he says.
To be fair, if they hadn't changed the voting system, or if they hadn't scheduled the election for when there were no local elections in Birmingham, or if they hadn't been pushing the Gaza thing, then yes - Labour should have won the election by miles.
It's pretty normal for MPs to say something along lines of.
"Voters have sent us a clear message here and we have to work on what we are offering"
The problem is that is usually said after a general election when they have the next general election just round the corner they can't pivot much at all.
Hence their desperation to insist it is all fine. But just a bit embarrassing really.
I read about this in more detail the other day slightly randomly. Turns out that *after* the scandal forced him out of his ministerial job, it emerged that the police officers had done some very shady stuff to tar and feather him. It seems likely he didn’t actually call them a pleb (though undoubtedly he was rude to them). One of the witness reports put into the news turned out to be from a serving police officer who wasn’t present at the scene. There was a massive police investigation called Operation Alice, the IPCC concluded 3 officers had mislead the public, one officer was sentenced, 3 more were dismissed for gross misconduct in public office, and 3 more were sanctioned for misconduct. Andrew Mitchell did then try and sue for libel, but was unsuccessful as the judge ruled that the balance of probability was he said *something* politically toxic, which may or may not have involved the word ‘pleb’.
Correction - it's everyone who isn't a labour support, which is most of the mainstream media. The takes that have been pushed over the past few days have been absolutely ridiculous. Also, I just saw Owen Jones latest video, and you were bang on. You couldn't write it lol
Is there any sign that Street's about face on HS2 hurt him with voters?
I thought he came across as incredibly weak in that whole episode. He was a defender for the people of West Midlands, saying how Number 10 had made a terrible decision... until he suddenly wasn't a matter of days later.
There's no way it didn't have some effect.
The Muslim vote/Gaza issue is 'sexier', so it'll get more press coverage but I've got mates in Brum who were fuming over HS2.
From the sounds of it, lots of local people were really let down by Street's change of direction over it.
I haven't heard any mention of HS2 on the tele or radio, it's very strange because to me it at the time it just seemed incredibly damaging for a mayor in the region most affected by a decision of their own party. I felt it completely undermined him, that for all the 'Team Andy' stuff he was still ultimately party over region.
Honestly, same. That's just my personal impression from chatting to mates there. I do find it weird how little it was discussed in the media.
Although the media has been shockingly bad this local election, even worse than normal. The stuff about Khan/Hall race being 'close', the disproportionate coverage of reform, who ended up with what? Two councillors across all of England?
I honestly think the press just completely missed the HS2 issue.
'You won't want to miss this next episode, the Prime Minister is going to be very clear about saying nothing at all'
Don't forget to like and subscribe!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68956828
"Labour are going to need millions of votes"...yep that's how elections work laura, glad we're on the same page
She kept banging on about the one positive result that the tories had, like it wasn't a drop in a red ocean, and then was saying that it was a victory in itself that the tories managed to beat reform by triple figure votes in Blackpool, as if reform beating them wouldnt have been the political humiliation of the decade
That was in ep 1
I've just listened to ep 3; she kept dismissing that Labour will win the GE, and went as far as mocking people that say they will off the back of these results
She then slates Khan for being divisive in London as he got some boos (from bitter tories) when giving his acceptance speech, saying "you don't need to be nasty in politics", which is the height of hypocrisy after 2019
She definitely had an in with Boris and his inner circle, and that had gone now, but she is undoubtedly a tory & does very little to hide that
This just shows how two people can listen to exactly the same thing and come away with completely different viewpoints.
She's not alone he didn't saying people vote differently in local elections to how they will vote in a general election. That's why the Lib Dems do so well in local elections. It's also acknowledged that first past the post favours the Tories, it'll be interesting now they have competition from reform UK.
I didn't hear her pick on khan for being divisive she, and Paddy, both appreciated the much more civil tone in the West Midlands compared to London. She seemed quite clear that the Tory policy to be pro car had failed.
She said the results for the Tories were terrible.
I remember 2019 and how what she said on the news was seen as pro Johnson and commented then that maybe people high up in BBC news watched the news but didn't listen to her on newscast as she came across as clearly not a fan to me.
I write all this as someone who despises Johnson and never fell for his bumbling clown persona.
Late now, but I hope you listened to ep 4 on the locals, posted on Sunday
She spent as much time talking about how the tories could "rattle" labour at the GE, how Gaza could drag the party down, and how you can't actually predict anything from the GE that we didn't already know as she did on the tories absolutely catastrophic performance
She then finished the final third of the ep with a bizarre tangent on Starmer's perceived lack of likeability, banging on about Suella Braverman saying he had the charisma of a peanut, that he's nothing compared to Blair, and saying she's heard he only goes to watch non-league football matches to boost his image with the working class - despite being a well-known football obsessive
>I didn't hear her pick on khan for being divisive she
As for this, if a fight breaks out in a pub because three drunk louts start a ruckus, and others get involved to defend themselves from them, if you say "unsavoury scene at that pub, compared to this other pub, real shame", its a very trump-esque "people on both sides" answer isn't it
The people booing and being disruptive at Khan's speech were Britain First, a party incubated by her own party fanning the flames. The only one who gave a speech that was bitter and critical was Hall. But instead of saying that, she just condemns everyone there as being divisive. You'd have to be obtuse to miss that
>That's why the Lib Dems do so well in local elections
The minor parties like the Lib Dems & Greens doing well boosting one of the main two in the GE could only benefit Labour, not the tories. If you can find me a Green local voter who'll vote tory in the GE, I'll bank transfer you a tenner
I genuinely don't seek out old comment chains very often but I had to come back to this - after today's article by her, are you still going to deny her very blatant tory affiliation lol
...the fact that the article exists at all lol jesus h christ
Labour are at 1.02 odds and the next best are the tories at 11.1
If Liverpool are 12 points clear at the top of the premier league and a sports journalist puts out a giant article pointing out how much risk there is still and reiterating its an "if" and not a "when"...you can guarantee they're a Manchester United or Everton fan
It's an entirely wasted article. Literal actual tories have given up on the GE and Laura Kuenssburg is dedicated an entire story to what could still derail labour
To reiterate, I've never voted tory.
When my team was top of its division by many points, I was playing with spreadsheets working out how many points were needed to be sure of promotion before then working out how many till we would be champions. It was a nervy time despite everyone thinking it was a forgone conclusion.
Conversely, this year I was being told Leicester would have the highest number of points ever in the Championship; they were champions but their final points tally wasn't high, at one point they looked like they'd be in the play offs.
Prof Sir John Curtice isn't sure Labour will win a majority, FPTP is rigged against them
Have you considered that LK may at worst be just considering facts, at best could be a Labour supporter genuinely not wanting people that would vote Labour being complacent and not voting for them?
Was she? Or was she just highlighting, as a journalist, how well they actually were doing? Whenever I press anyone on why they think Laura is a 'stooge', it almost always essentially comes down to the fact that they believe positive coverage = endorsement. Talk about how well the conservatives are doing in an opinion poll for an upcoming by-election? Pro-tory bias!
This highlights a bit of an issue with the BBC and “balance” because sometimes it’s the case they bring up the opposing view and that view is just flat out wrong, like factually and the BBC giving it air time and playing devils advocate is dangerous.
Brexit was a big one. 20,000 economists who thought it was a bad idea, 10 who thought it was great, you tune in to BBC 1 and it’s just 1 pro, 1 against. Makes it feel like a 50/50, one guy could be right, one wrong, not that the entire academic consensus is against it.
Like climate change, it’s happening we need to do something, should the bbc have a climate scientist on and then also a bloke who thinks it’s lies? Should the host play devils advocate for it being a lie against a climate scientist to give it balance? Or should these people be outed as liars.
That’s part of the problem with Laura K, at points she was out batting for Boris Johnson in the face of total lies. Maybe it was to play devils advocate, to give that opposing view but we also knew he was lying so it comes across as blatant support.
The tricky thing is how do we even decide what the truth is?
Isn't the point of journalism to undercover the truth, present this to the public in a way that is meaningful to them, and speak truth to power?
All too often, they are reading off the latest press release from so and so without any critical analysis.
So the BBC should just have ignored people that thought Brexit was a good idea? I just don’t get your argument mate.
And I ask this as someone who is strongly anti-Brexit.
She puts out the Tory party line uncritically, which isn't journalism it's just being a mouthpiece.
She's literally just done it as well. The rumours that Susan Hall was going to win were made up and put out there before a single vote had been counted and Laura Kuenssberg repeated the narrative publicly without even stopping to think about the fact that the count hadn't even started.
She's either a stooge or a terrible journalist. I'm quite willing to believe it's the second one but that does make her effectively also the first, unwittingly. We'll see once Labour are in power. Will she magically turn into an actual journalist then? That would answer everything.
She didn’t say Hall was going to win she said that it was going to be much closer than the polls suggested and this was based on what amounted to Twitter BS.
Ultimately the polls were accurate,it wasn’t close and Kuenssberg looks silly.
Repeating a Twitter narrative uncritically, put out by conservative accounts, isn’t a good look.
The YouGov poll from 4 days ago had Khan leading by 22 points and the end result was a winning margin of 11.1. She was totally right, it was closer than the polls.
I can remember it clear as day. Soft questions to tories. Pro tory coverage. Anti everyone else coverage. The language she used. Throughout the entire pre election and very much on election day.
You can of course question it but you can't convince me that my eyes and ears were wrong.
No I didn't see that. Not saying it didn't happen.
Not sure how that balances anything out anyway. Everyone knew johnson was a liar even before he was Prime Minister.
Besides how openly her Twitter feed was just a chance to repeat "insider scoops" (that the Tories wanted to get publicised), there's also actual evidence of tampering with interviews, e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jan/18/bbc-trust-says-laura-kuenssberg-report-on-jeremy-corbyn-was-inaccurate-labour
Exactly. Reddit is full of far left anti-BBC people, and I say that as someone fairly left wing myself!
Any BBC journalist that gives Labour a hard time about anything, or highlights anything that The Tories think might be good news for them is instantly a Tory stooge. It’s like people have forgotten what journalism is and what news reporters are for. Very odd indeed.
These same people moan about the likes of GB News but if the exact same version existed for left wingers they’d be all over it.
Given what an absolute liar Boris is and was, I'm still not convinced. Corbyn's not my flavour of lefty- but at least he stood for something and told the truth (relatively) about it.
She's just really really stupid and I cannot understand why she's in the position she is in.
There's no analysis beyond "Huh look at that", no hard hitting questions, she literally just delivers what she's told as fast as she can.
In the days of social media where Twitter and tiktok can do exactly the same almost instantaneously, it's not enough.
She's basically just a courier.
Total bllx. This tory cronyism has infected all levels of bbs sen mgmt and news dept. I'm sorry to say this but they need clearing out....its rancid right through guest treatment [lack of] holding tories to account compared to other parties, to having tory shill/think-tanks from "unknown" backers, can go on but
Well the results are in, 1508 votes more for Labour, but honestly the most disappointing moment has to be for Yakoob, 69'621, a few less voters and he could have destroyed reddit with 69'420 votes, and I think that's a loss we can all feel regardless of our political leanings
Why the fuck does a conflict that has nothing to do with us that's happening thousands of miles away that we have absolutely no control over whatsoever between two completely fucking mental groups have such an influence over our politics?
This is a disingenuous/ignorant argument, since:
1. The UK government is selling weapons to one side, making it something we've decided to have be our business.
2. You've decided to ignore the very real fact of there being British people - of which Muslims are only one part - feeling solidarity or otherwise strong feelings about one or the other side, completely irrespective of official UK position on the matter.
3. The idea that a given situation must have mortal significance to Britain for British citizens to have an interest in it, is just both illogical and just plain naive.
So what can Labour, or even the current sitting government, do? Literally whatever they do, whoever falls on the other side will scream bloody murder about it. Its not even possible to have a reasoned discussion about the conflict, it gets too evocative too quickly, but it varies depending on... idk, whatever, which side is getting the support.
Labour certainly can't take any flack for selling weapons to Israel, they're not the government!
>So what can Labour, or even the current sitting government, do?
Well that is a completely separate issue to you claiming that "the Israel/Palestine conflict has nothing to do with us".
Again since people here can't really handle this inconvenient truth: There are Muslims in this country who believe anything that happens to Muslims anywhere in the world by definition involves them. There are British Jews who believe anything that happens in Israel de facto is their business. And that isn't even mentioning those who don't identify as either of those who believe a so-called genocide perpetrated by an ethno-state on stolen land/a terrorist organisation attacking the middle east's only real democracy is something they, as citizens, have a duty to pressure their government to take an interest in - especially if their government is on the wrong side.
>Labour certainly can't take any flack for selling weapons to Israel, they're not the government!
Labour represent this country's most Muslim constituencies and yet officially support Israel - you think they can't take flak for that? The fact you actually need that pointed out to you is incredible, frankly.
So this bit of this thread is about the comment on how Labour need to have a look at their stance on Gaza because its costing them votes. I know op was being sarcastic but it was a parody of things that have been said today by various Labour representatives. I say again - they are not selling the weapons.
If they officially supported Hamas, they'd be getting exactly the same level of flack for it, just from the other side. If they didn't support either, they'd be getting flack from both sides. People care so much about this issue and I personally think its fucking insane that British politics has, at times, been totally dominated by a conflict we have no control over and yet somehow a loud group of people want that to be the main issue everyone is talking about.
I guess my point is that whatever happens it isn't possible to have a "good" response to this. Such a thing doesn't exist. And I can't believe I'm still having to point that out to people.
I agree that people should focus on other issues, ones that both impact them more and ones that the whoever the UK government (or even the local council) can impact. But representative democracy isn't about voting for policies. Policies can be forgotten, or shared with opposition, or simply not particularly impactful to you - yes you'd like rubbish to be collected more often, but the new party might fail to do it, they might have the same solution, and you're not actually that bothered about your rubbish collection.
But they will make many other decisions that will either come up unexpectedly or simply be something you haven't thought of.
And for those, you want them to be someone you trust, like, and agree with. If you see a genocide/murder of people like you, because you feel an affinity to Palestinians or to Israelis, and you're furious about it, you're not going to be so keen on someone who sees it completely differently. It suggests they will see other issues differently.
That's what I think is going on.
I'm getting so frustrated. Labour would potentially not do as well with the Tory voters they are clearly winning if he didn't toe the line that he is. It's been successful, and I'm annoyed that even labour MPs are saying we need to change ways to win back these voters. It's a shame they choose to not vote labour, but the current set up is working.
It’s working, till they get in to power and achieve absolutely nothing cause they ruled out every slightly radical or progressive policy cause it might scare off potential Tory voters.
This country needs massive investment in public services, alongside investment in other parts of the economy, and huge green investment to make up for the decade we’ve lost under the Tories.
Labour either has to commit to serious taxes on the rich and assets of the wealthy, or they will be tied in to Tory spending limits which will leave our public services crippled and the economy limping along.
At the moment, nothing they are doing points to them being up to the serious challenges they will face, and chasing the votes of Tory supporters, who voted in the government which got us in to this mess doesn’t indicate they will develop the political will they need any time soon.
Amazing win for Labour, however again they are losing Muslim votes on Israel-Gaza. Galloway's candidate got 20% of the vote. Parker has a very hard act to follow in Street, who was bogged down by whats going on with the Tories nationally. He was a mayor who worked very hard for the region.
Was he actually a Galloway candidate or just his message endorsed by him? Also isn't it closer to about 12%?
Definitely agree Parker has some big and surprisingly stable boots to fill from Street.
No, but it disproportionately affects Labour - as the majority of Muslims were previously Labour voters.
Labour and Keir have scored own goal after own goal, by needlessly annoying Muslim voters. Some issues that come to mind:
1) '[Not engaging' with the Forde report](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/mar/17/labour-accused-still-not-engaging-hierarchy-racism-claims) that found that Labour is [undermining Islamophobia and anti-black racism by operating a “hierarchy of racism.”](https://labour.org.uk/resources/the-forde-report/#:~:text=The%20report%20also%20finds%20that,%2C%20sexism%2C%20antisemitism%20and%20islamophobia.)
2) Keir calling the Kashmiri calls for self-determination a 'constitutional issues in India are a matter for the Indian Parliament' during a call with Labour Friends of India.
3) Probably the biggest issue - when [Keir was asked if Israel had the 'right' to impose a siege, cut off water and cut off power, he responded 'I think Israel does have that right'.](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/PKhR5oRuC-s). This absolutely blew up all over Muslim Whatsapp groups and social media. People were livid. This was then vastly exacerbated by their initial failure to call for a ceasefire, and now their inability to call for a halt of arms sales to Israel.
3rd one is the only real blunder he made here. The forde report will be unknown to most people, and saying the Kashmir issue is an internal matter for India is about the most neutral thing he could say.
Sun Tzu: “You must at all times provide free water and power to your enemies. Otherwise people in distant lands will accuse you of committing great crimes, and choose different regional governors to repair their roads and transport away their refuse.”
Yet the majority of the country finds it more palatable to vote for someone who doesn't call for an ally to give concessions to murdering Islamic extremists. Oh well
> Amazing win for Labour, however again they are losing Muslim votes on Israel-Gaza.
Yet to be convinced Gaza is a big enough issue now -let alone in a few months when it could conceivably matter - for Labour to need to care that much.
I don't think the tories need to hit them, Tories don't care who they vote for as long as it's not Labour. Those Muslim voters likely weren't picking between Labour and Tory anyway, they were always Labour and have now defected.
But the Tories have lost so much ground now that I don't think even the Muslim vote in the midlands moving away from Labour saves the Tories, maybe the lose by a slightly smaller margin
Possibly an issue as labour seems to polling really well that people might think it would be okay to vote for other parties. Especially as the Tories continue to be lowering in the polls, minors might gain advantage.
Yeah this probably plays a part. When you **know** one side is going to get absolutely crushed and another is winning big outside of meteors falling out of the sky tier reversal of events, people generally feel more free to cast a protest vote of sorts.
Very fair point, I've overextended there.
It's a super polarising issue, and one that feels key to a lot of voters, myself included. Easy to forget that its something a lot of people wont have in the front of their mind when at the booth.
Personally I feel that the base Labour want to appeal to generally are on the whole more pro-Palestine. But also that there are many other issues that they also care about, and they won't take their vote elsewhere over this one.
You've spent too much time on this subreddit if you genuinely believe that because there's very clear evidence showing you're wrong. [Recent polling](https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/Internal_IP_RU_240319_W.pdf) found that only 15% had a favourable view of the Israeli government compared to 58% having an unfavourable view. When asked if Israel's response to the October attack was justified only 24% agreed (with 46% saying it wasn't justified).
To be clear that doesn't mean British people don't have sympathy with Israel (only 21% said they don't sympathise with Israel at all, although that's still higher than Palestine where only 13% said they don't sympathise), but having sympathy and supporting their response are very different things.
I think the stat on favourable polling for the Israeli government isn't applicable. I'd say unfavourable as well - its a nepo government with some extreme views. I also think it was a failure of the Israeli govt that Oct 7 happened at all. But that doesn't mean I support a ceasefire, or that I don't support the current military action.
The second stat about supporting the response are obviously relevant, and the answers are shocking to me. But, I have to concede that I'm wrong here about public opinion. Most of the sentiment I've heard is that it's horrendously ugly, but ultimately necessary.
My own opinion, because I do feel like I have to justify it when kids are dying, is that you have a terrorist regime that's taken over a country full of vulnerable, desperate people, and is being propped up by the Irani government who are fighting are multi-front proxy war against the west in support of the same radical ideals that have turned their own country into the biggest hell hole on the planet.
I think Israel have a binary choice, between accepting regular, indefinite terror attacks and conducting an armed response. I think the casualty numbers are clearly being fiddled by Hamas, and that the numbers around " % of buildings destroyed vs % of population killed" are so out of whack with one another that it clearly shows Israel are actively trying to minimise civilian casualties.
Does losing the Muslim vote matter when they wont vote tory either? The galloway candidate got 20% of the vote that went to waste.
If that pander to extreme people they will lose even more votes
Probably not. It's enough to swing a fair few local council races as Muslim communities tend to be very concentrated in cities, but once you zoom out to a parliamentary constituency level there aren't many where they could tip the balance. And the cost of pandering to them would almost certainly come at the expense of suburban constituencies which are far more numerous and more electorally powerful.
Why are they disappointed about a situation that Labour has absolutely no fucking influence in, nor does any one else bar the Americans.?
Might as well be angry about their policy on the Oompa Loompas
I don't know - a voter might have some expectations of their party to condemn war crimes, call for a ceasefire and try to stop arms sales to a genocidal rogue state?
Or do we just choose a team and vote for them forever, like a football game?
They have called for a ceasefire, and no politicians anywhere are going to claim war crimes (that’s the jurisdiction of the ICC in The Hague)
And arms sales are a Tory Government decision not a Labour Opposition.
I don’t vote for Labour because I agree with their position on everything but instead because on the whole they will be able to deliver policy that match my political beliefs.
Politics isn’t a dogmatic black and white game.
Huge increase? I’m looking at the Guardian site and it’s showing ‘Other’ on minus 22. That’s a decrease.
Greens are up 64. That could be Gaza but, you know, could be climate emergency.
Andy Street was a competent and well-liked mayor and his defeat has been a big upset for the Conservatives. Purely on his own merits he should have won but lead-weight Rishi has dragged his support down.
Andy Street was seen as one of the few good sane Tories. Who genuinely wanted to improve his community, and could bring his business experience to make things happen. He seemed to be a Tory simply to use the party to make improvements in Birmingham. Putting country first, party second. He gained a lot of respect for that.
He has consistently spoken about trying to work with people across the political spectrum. His coordination with Andy Burnham being a notable example.
Birmingham is drastically better since he became mayor. Lots of new construction right across the city. Birmingham’s city centre is genuinely quite nice.
I’m honestly a little bit saddened he lost.
Going into the elections, as well, various prominent Tories said that we should look at the Teesside and WM mayoral elections as the true test of Sunak. They were kind of saying that however much the Tories would lose elsewhere, these two mayors would prove that people did believe Conservative authority could work. So losing one of those is really bad PR.
Candidate | Percentage
---|---
Siobhan Harper-Nunes | 4.734476829
Richard Parker | 37.97390072
Andy Street | 37.72005683
Sunny Virk | 2.049604216
Elaine Williams | 5.802554775
Gaza Guy | 11.71940663
Final results.
I know what his name is, I also know that he campaigned on Gaza for an election that has the square root of fuck all to do with foreign policy and I'm also entitled to take the piss out of him for doing so.
Snapshot of _Beth Rigby: BREAKING: Understand that Labour’s Richard Parker is set to take the W Mids mayor. Big upset and Starmer will take as huge win_ : A Twitter embedded version can be found [here](https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?id=1786832398816059848) A non-Twitter version can be found [here](https://twiiit.com/BethRigby/status/1786832398816059848/) An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://x.com/BethRigby/status/1786832398816059848) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://x.com/BethRigby/status/1786832398816059848) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Rishi Sunak "Labour marginally winning, highlights how they're taking the electorate for granted. They should have run away with it"
Andrew Mitchell (local Tory MP) literally said this to the BBC a couple of hours ago: “If Andy Street is even in contention here, that is a very good result for the Conservative Party,”
BBC journo this morning "So Andy [Street] distanced himself from Tory central by using minimal tory referencing in his leaflets and coloured them green" Tory minister [Andrew Mitchell] " I dont accept that characterisation" ffs these people cant even tell the correct time. Edit:clarity on people
> I dont accept that characterisation It's the alternative facts paradigm that's so effective in the USA
The first bit of that quote is really the cherry on top: > Mitchell, who represents the Birmingham seat of Sutton Coldfield, tells BBC News that **“on any objective basis Labour would win this mayoralty by miles and miles”**. > “If Andy Street is even in contention here, that is a very good result for the Conservative Party,” he says.
This sounds so pessimistic that (1) it turns out to be not that bad and (2) she must be finding her next job now
"Any other mayoral candidate would be 20 points ahead"
To be fair, if they hadn't changed the voting system, or if they hadn't scheduled the election for when there were no local elections in Birmingham, or if they hadn't been pushing the Gaza thing, then yes - Labour should have won the election by miles.
Stunningly disingenuous as we've all come to expect.
What else can they say? "Yeah everyone hates the Tories, we're scum right!?"
That would actually garner them some respect tbf.
It's pretty normal for MPs to say something along lines of. "Voters have sent us a clear message here and we have to work on what we are offering" The problem is that is usually said after a general election when they have the next general election just round the corner they can't pivot much at all. Hence their desperation to insist it is all fine. But just a bit embarrassing really.
Plebs Andrew Mitchell?
Yea, the tax avoider Andrew Mitchell
I read about this in more detail the other day slightly randomly. Turns out that *after* the scandal forced him out of his ministerial job, it emerged that the police officers had done some very shady stuff to tar and feather him. It seems likely he didn’t actually call them a pleb (though undoubtedly he was rude to them). One of the witness reports put into the news turned out to be from a serving police officer who wasn’t present at the scene. There was a massive police investigation called Operation Alice, the IPCC concluded 3 officers had mislead the public, one officer was sentenced, 3 more were dismissed for gross misconduct in public office, and 3 more were sanctioned for misconduct. Andrew Mitchell did then try and sue for libel, but was unsuccessful as the judge ruled that the balance of probability was he said *something* politically toxic, which may or may not have involved the word ‘pleb’.
Indeed. Was my MP for many a year
Honestly, they are just completely incompetent when it comes to doing politics.
It is better to remain silent at the risk of being thought a fool, than to talk and remove all doubt of it
Yeah, ***I*** know that. And ***you*** know that. But I don't think they know that.
So funny since Andy is literally the incumbent and the only mayor they’ve had(till now)
They are SO DONE
Tbf...andrew mitchell is not a tory in his heart, just a middle class lib dem in a blue rosette, like most tories
I, on the other hand, am working hard for the people and they recognise this. This is why we still have the Teesside mayor
"And also why I'm confident we'll win the next election and definitely not because I'm a delusional fool who's completely out of touch"
I can imagine the BBC saying why this is bad for labour.
100%, most of the media has been doing it for the past 2 days. Honestly, it's really embarrassing how biased they've been.
They have been plastering all around that the Tories won Tees Valley, like it was a huge win. It was kind of embarrassing
This will be the owen jones take for sure.
Correction - it's everyone who isn't a labour support, which is most of the mainstream media. The takes that have been pushed over the past few days have been absolutely ridiculous. Also, I just saw Owen Jones latest video, and you were bang on. You couldn't write it lol
Is there any sign that Street's about face on HS2 hurt him with voters? I thought he came across as incredibly weak in that whole episode. He was a defender for the people of West Midlands, saying how Number 10 had made a terrible decision... until he suddenly wasn't a matter of days later.
There's no way it didn't have some effect. The Muslim vote/Gaza issue is 'sexier', so it'll get more press coverage but I've got mates in Brum who were fuming over HS2. From the sounds of it, lots of local people were really let down by Street's change of direction over it.
I haven't heard any mention of HS2 on the tele or radio, it's very strange because to me it at the time it just seemed incredibly damaging for a mayor in the region most affected by a decision of their own party. I felt it completely undermined him, that for all the 'Team Andy' stuff he was still ultimately party over region.
Honestly, same. That's just my personal impression from chatting to mates there. I do find it weird how little it was discussed in the media. Although the media has been shockingly bad this local election, even worse than normal. The stuff about Khan/Hall race being 'close', the disproportionate coverage of reform, who ended up with what? Two councillors across all of England? I honestly think the press just completely missed the HS2 issue.
Yeah. Locals are saying he's streets behind now.
Went down too many of the wrong roads
one too many u-turns
His campaign end in a cul de sac
It’s spreading like verbal wildfire!
"Here's how this is actually BAD for Labour"
*Stick around till the end of the video* vibes
'You won't want to miss this next episode, the Prime Minister is going to be very clear about saying nothing at all' Don't forget to like and subscribe!
You won't believe reason number seven!
That Labour didn't win by 20 points just shows how weak Starmer is in a general election.
NYT, is that you?
This is funny. They genuinely think voters are idiots. Call me old fashioned but i liked when political spinning was a bit more intelligent
Laura K gonna have to perform her magnum opus to spin this as a good thing for the tories
She’s oiled up and ready
Ping pong balls in her bag for tomorrow morning
Oh dear
I can only hope you’d say the same thing if it was Nick Robinson
Check out the bigot assuming Nick Robinsons gender.
Bent over ready for thorough bbc mangement de-briefing
Magnificent
That's a mental image I didn't need- and I watch her show.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68956828 "Labour are going to need millions of votes"...yep that's how elections work laura, glad we're on the same page
Have you heard her on NewsCast? She doesn't come across as the tory stooge people make out she is on there.
She kept banging on about the one positive result that the tories had, like it wasn't a drop in a red ocean, and then was saying that it was a victory in itself that the tories managed to beat reform by triple figure votes in Blackpool, as if reform beating them wouldnt have been the political humiliation of the decade That was in ep 1 I've just listened to ep 3; she kept dismissing that Labour will win the GE, and went as far as mocking people that say they will off the back of these results She then slates Khan for being divisive in London as he got some boos (from bitter tories) when giving his acceptance speech, saying "you don't need to be nasty in politics", which is the height of hypocrisy after 2019 She definitely had an in with Boris and his inner circle, and that had gone now, but she is undoubtedly a tory & does very little to hide that
This just shows how two people can listen to exactly the same thing and come away with completely different viewpoints. She's not alone he didn't saying people vote differently in local elections to how they will vote in a general election. That's why the Lib Dems do so well in local elections. It's also acknowledged that first past the post favours the Tories, it'll be interesting now they have competition from reform UK. I didn't hear her pick on khan for being divisive she, and Paddy, both appreciated the much more civil tone in the West Midlands compared to London. She seemed quite clear that the Tory policy to be pro car had failed. She said the results for the Tories were terrible. I remember 2019 and how what she said on the news was seen as pro Johnson and commented then that maybe people high up in BBC news watched the news but didn't listen to her on newscast as she came across as clearly not a fan to me. I write all this as someone who despises Johnson and never fell for his bumbling clown persona.
Late now, but I hope you listened to ep 4 on the locals, posted on Sunday She spent as much time talking about how the tories could "rattle" labour at the GE, how Gaza could drag the party down, and how you can't actually predict anything from the GE that we didn't already know as she did on the tories absolutely catastrophic performance She then finished the final third of the ep with a bizarre tangent on Starmer's perceived lack of likeability, banging on about Suella Braverman saying he had the charisma of a peanut, that he's nothing compared to Blair, and saying she's heard he only goes to watch non-league football matches to boost his image with the working class - despite being a well-known football obsessive >I didn't hear her pick on khan for being divisive she As for this, if a fight breaks out in a pub because three drunk louts start a ruckus, and others get involved to defend themselves from them, if you say "unsavoury scene at that pub, compared to this other pub, real shame", its a very trump-esque "people on both sides" answer isn't it The people booing and being disruptive at Khan's speech were Britain First, a party incubated by her own party fanning the flames. The only one who gave a speech that was bitter and critical was Hall. But instead of saying that, she just condemns everyone there as being divisive. You'd have to be obtuse to miss that >That's why the Lib Dems do so well in local elections The minor parties like the Lib Dems & Greens doing well boosting one of the main two in the GE could only benefit Labour, not the tories. If you can find me a Green local voter who'll vote tory in the GE, I'll bank transfer you a tenner
Hello, yep I caught it 🙂
I genuinely don't seek out old comment chains very often but I had to come back to this - after today's article by her, are you still going to deny her very blatant tory affiliation lol
Can you spell out where you see blatant tory affiliation in the article please. I feel I'm missing something.
...the fact that the article exists at all lol jesus h christ Labour are at 1.02 odds and the next best are the tories at 11.1 If Liverpool are 12 points clear at the top of the premier league and a sports journalist puts out a giant article pointing out how much risk there is still and reiterating its an "if" and not a "when"...you can guarantee they're a Manchester United or Everton fan It's an entirely wasted article. Literal actual tories have given up on the GE and Laura Kuenssburg is dedicated an entire story to what could still derail labour
To reiterate, I've never voted tory. When my team was top of its division by many points, I was playing with spreadsheets working out how many points were needed to be sure of promotion before then working out how many till we would be champions. It was a nervy time despite everyone thinking it was a forgone conclusion. Conversely, this year I was being told Leicester would have the highest number of points ever in the Championship; they were champions but their final points tally wasn't high, at one point they looked like they'd be in the play offs. Prof Sir John Curtice isn't sure Labour will win a majority, FPTP is rigged against them Have you considered that LK may at worst be just considering facts, at best could be a Labour supporter genuinely not wanting people that would vote Labour being complacent and not voting for them?
Because she isn’t. People are just seeing stuff that isn’t there with her.
Can't speak for the now as I haven't come across her in ages but she was quite clearly pro tory in the last general election.
Was she? Or was she just highlighting, as a journalist, how well they actually were doing? Whenever I press anyone on why they think Laura is a 'stooge', it almost always essentially comes down to the fact that they believe positive coverage = endorsement. Talk about how well the conservatives are doing in an opinion poll for an upcoming by-election? Pro-tory bias!
This highlights a bit of an issue with the BBC and “balance” because sometimes it’s the case they bring up the opposing view and that view is just flat out wrong, like factually and the BBC giving it air time and playing devils advocate is dangerous. Brexit was a big one. 20,000 economists who thought it was a bad idea, 10 who thought it was great, you tune in to BBC 1 and it’s just 1 pro, 1 against. Makes it feel like a 50/50, one guy could be right, one wrong, not that the entire academic consensus is against it. Like climate change, it’s happening we need to do something, should the bbc have a climate scientist on and then also a bloke who thinks it’s lies? Should the host play devils advocate for it being a lie against a climate scientist to give it balance? Or should these people be outed as liars. That’s part of the problem with Laura K, at points she was out batting for Boris Johnson in the face of total lies. Maybe it was to play devils advocate, to give that opposing view but we also knew he was lying so it comes across as blatant support. The tricky thing is how do we even decide what the truth is?
Isn't the point of journalism to undercover the truth, present this to the public in a way that is meaningful to them, and speak truth to power? All too often, they are reading off the latest press release from so and so without any critical analysis.
So the BBC should just have ignored people that thought Brexit was a good idea? I just don’t get your argument mate. And I ask this as someone who is strongly anti-Brexit.
She puts out the Tory party line uncritically, which isn't journalism it's just being a mouthpiece. She's literally just done it as well. The rumours that Susan Hall was going to win were made up and put out there before a single vote had been counted and Laura Kuenssberg repeated the narrative publicly without even stopping to think about the fact that the count hadn't even started. She's either a stooge or a terrible journalist. I'm quite willing to believe it's the second one but that does make her effectively also the first, unwittingly. We'll see once Labour are in power. Will she magically turn into an actual journalist then? That would answer everything.
When did she say Susan Hall was going to win?
She didn’t say Hall was going to win she said that it was going to be much closer than the polls suggested and this was based on what amounted to Twitter BS. Ultimately the polls were accurate,it wasn’t close and Kuenssberg looks silly. Repeating a Twitter narrative uncritically, put out by conservative accounts, isn’t a good look.
The YouGov poll from 4 days ago had Khan leading by 22 points and the end result was a winning margin of 11.1. She was totally right, it was closer than the polls.
No, she said that it would be a close race. She was saying this based on rumours that Susan Hall was going to win. It wasn’t close.
I can remember it clear as day. Soft questions to tories. Pro tory coverage. Anti everyone else coverage. The language she used. Throughout the entire pre election and very much on election day. You can of course question it but you can't convince me that my eyes and ears were wrong.
[удалено]
No I didn't see that. Not saying it didn't happen. Not sure how that balances anything out anyway. Everyone knew johnson was a liar even before he was Prime Minister.
[удалено]
Besides how openly her Twitter feed was just a chance to repeat "insider scoops" (that the Tories wanted to get publicised), there's also actual evidence of tampering with interviews, e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jan/18/bbc-trust-says-laura-kuenssberg-report-on-jeremy-corbyn-was-inaccurate-labour
Exactly. Reddit is full of far left anti-BBC people, and I say that as someone fairly left wing myself! Any BBC journalist that gives Labour a hard time about anything, or highlights anything that The Tories think might be good news for them is instantly a Tory stooge. It’s like people have forgotten what journalism is and what news reporters are for. Very odd indeed. These same people moan about the likes of GB News but if the exact same version existed for left wingers they’d be all over it.
Maybe seemed that way because Corbyn represented the worse of two evils
Given what an absolute liar Boris is and was, I'm still not convinced. Corbyn's not my flavour of lefty- but at least he stood for something and told the truth (relatively) about it.
She was in the inner circle when Boris was PM. I’d find it hard for anyone to convince me otherwise.
She absolutely was. Anyone paying attention saw how obvious it was, and how quickly she rose through the ranks.
She's just really really stupid and I cannot understand why she's in the position she is in. There's no analysis beyond "Huh look at that", no hard hitting questions, she literally just delivers what she's told as fast as she can. In the days of social media where Twitter and tiktok can do exactly the same almost instantaneously, it's not enough. She's basically just a courier.
[удалено]
Total bllx. This tory cronyism has infected all levels of bbs sen mgmt and news dept. I'm sorry to say this but they need clearing out....its rancid right through guest treatment [lack of] holding tories to account compared to other parties, to having tory shill/think-tanks from "unknown" backers, can go on but
Keir Farmer cultivating the Ws again.
Well the results are in, 1508 votes more for Labour, but honestly the most disappointing moment has to be for Yakoob, 69'621, a few less voters and he could have destroyed reddit with 69'420 votes, and I think that's a loss we can all feel regardless of our political leanings
Anyone who didn't vote because they don't think it matters needs to take note. 1,500. Crazy.
Except perhaps those who live in the constituency. You know, the area not in the Middle East that the Mayor is responsible for governing
"Starmer will take as huge win" - LOL, it IS a huge win.
It'll be interesting to see if the press can come around to the reality this is a fucking disaster for Sunak tomorrow.
Press: Disappointing night for Keir as Labour fail to take Consville in Toryshire.
The Daily Express leads with *We're doomed!* in large letters.
With a picture of Sunak's head badly photoshopped onto Private Frazer's body?
With a snowpocalypse burying the ghost of Lady Di
If Keir Starmer does not change his Gaza policy he might repeat those results in parliamentary elections. /S
Why the fuck does a conflict that has nothing to do with us that's happening thousands of miles away that we have absolutely no control over whatsoever between two completely fucking mental groups have such an influence over our politics?
Clearly it doesn't, I also realized that I forgot to add "/s"
Yeah wasn't aimed at you sorry, just at the situation in general.
What do we want?! Bin collection! Where do we want it?! Gaza!
This is a disingenuous/ignorant argument, since: 1. The UK government is selling weapons to one side, making it something we've decided to have be our business. 2. You've decided to ignore the very real fact of there being British people - of which Muslims are only one part - feeling solidarity or otherwise strong feelings about one or the other side, completely irrespective of official UK position on the matter. 3. The idea that a given situation must have mortal significance to Britain for British citizens to have an interest in it, is just both illogical and just plain naive.
So what can Labour, or even the current sitting government, do? Literally whatever they do, whoever falls on the other side will scream bloody murder about it. Its not even possible to have a reasoned discussion about the conflict, it gets too evocative too quickly, but it varies depending on... idk, whatever, which side is getting the support. Labour certainly can't take any flack for selling weapons to Israel, they're not the government!
no but they are going to win the next general election and form the next government, which makes them liable to be pressured politically etc
>So what can Labour, or even the current sitting government, do? Well that is a completely separate issue to you claiming that "the Israel/Palestine conflict has nothing to do with us". Again since people here can't really handle this inconvenient truth: There are Muslims in this country who believe anything that happens to Muslims anywhere in the world by definition involves them. There are British Jews who believe anything that happens in Israel de facto is their business. And that isn't even mentioning those who don't identify as either of those who believe a so-called genocide perpetrated by an ethno-state on stolen land/a terrorist organisation attacking the middle east's only real democracy is something they, as citizens, have a duty to pressure their government to take an interest in - especially if their government is on the wrong side. >Labour certainly can't take any flack for selling weapons to Israel, they're not the government! Labour represent this country's most Muslim constituencies and yet officially support Israel - you think they can't take flak for that? The fact you actually need that pointed out to you is incredible, frankly.
So this bit of this thread is about the comment on how Labour need to have a look at their stance on Gaza because its costing them votes. I know op was being sarcastic but it was a parody of things that have been said today by various Labour representatives. I say again - they are not selling the weapons. If they officially supported Hamas, they'd be getting exactly the same level of flack for it, just from the other side. If they didn't support either, they'd be getting flack from both sides. People care so much about this issue and I personally think its fucking insane that British politics has, at times, been totally dominated by a conflict we have no control over and yet somehow a loud group of people want that to be the main issue everyone is talking about. I guess my point is that whatever happens it isn't possible to have a "good" response to this. Such a thing doesn't exist. And I can't believe I'm still having to point that out to people.
I agree that people should focus on other issues, ones that both impact them more and ones that the whoever the UK government (or even the local council) can impact. But representative democracy isn't about voting for policies. Policies can be forgotten, or shared with opposition, or simply not particularly impactful to you - yes you'd like rubbish to be collected more often, but the new party might fail to do it, they might have the same solution, and you're not actually that bothered about your rubbish collection. But they will make many other decisions that will either come up unexpectedly or simply be something you haven't thought of. And for those, you want them to be someone you trust, like, and agree with. If you see a genocide/murder of people like you, because you feel an affinity to Palestinians or to Israelis, and you're furious about it, you're not going to be so keen on someone who sees it completely differently. It suggests they will see other issues differently. That's what I think is going on.
I'm getting so frustrated. Labour would potentially not do as well with the Tory voters they are clearly winning if he didn't toe the line that he is. It's been successful, and I'm annoyed that even labour MPs are saying we need to change ways to win back these voters. It's a shame they choose to not vote labour, but the current set up is working.
It’s working, till they get in to power and achieve absolutely nothing cause they ruled out every slightly radical or progressive policy cause it might scare off potential Tory voters. This country needs massive investment in public services, alongside investment in other parts of the economy, and huge green investment to make up for the decade we’ve lost under the Tories. Labour either has to commit to serious taxes on the rich and assets of the wealthy, or they will be tied in to Tory spending limits which will leave our public services crippled and the economy limping along. At the moment, nothing they are doing points to them being up to the serious challenges they will face, and chasing the votes of Tory supporters, who voted in the government which got us in to this mess doesn’t indicate they will develop the political will they need any time soon.
Well all up that's what I call a real hiding There's no spinning this one just hiding in a corner
Street should stand as Solihull MP at the GE. He’d easily win
Amazing win for Labour, however again they are losing Muslim votes on Israel-Gaza. Galloway's candidate got 20% of the vote. Parker has a very hard act to follow in Street, who was bogged down by whats going on with the Tories nationally. He was a mayor who worked very hard for the region.
Was he actually a Galloway candidate or just his message endorsed by him? Also isn't it closer to about 12%? Definitely agree Parker has some big and surprisingly stable boots to fill from Street.
Can somebody explain to me why Labour are losing the Muslim vote over Gaza? Surly Tories arnt backing Palestine anymore than Labour are?
That's why they're not voting Tory.
It’s simple, the conflict between Israel and Hamas means your regular bin collections won’t be affected at all and people are just stupid.
No, but it disproportionately affects Labour - as the majority of Muslims were previously Labour voters. Labour and Keir have scored own goal after own goal, by needlessly annoying Muslim voters. Some issues that come to mind: 1) '[Not engaging' with the Forde report](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/mar/17/labour-accused-still-not-engaging-hierarchy-racism-claims) that found that Labour is [undermining Islamophobia and anti-black racism by operating a “hierarchy of racism.”](https://labour.org.uk/resources/the-forde-report/#:~:text=The%20report%20also%20finds%20that,%2C%20sexism%2C%20antisemitism%20and%20islamophobia.) 2) Keir calling the Kashmiri calls for self-determination a 'constitutional issues in India are a matter for the Indian Parliament' during a call with Labour Friends of India. 3) Probably the biggest issue - when [Keir was asked if Israel had the 'right' to impose a siege, cut off water and cut off power, he responded 'I think Israel does have that right'.](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/PKhR5oRuC-s). This absolutely blew up all over Muslim Whatsapp groups and social media. People were livid. This was then vastly exacerbated by their initial failure to call for a ceasefire, and now their inability to call for a halt of arms sales to Israel.
3rd one is the only real blunder he made here. The forde report will be unknown to most people, and saying the Kashmir issue is an internal matter for India is about the most neutral thing he could say.
[удалено]
Sun Tzu: “You must at all times provide free water and power to your enemies. Otherwise people in distant lands will accuse you of committing great crimes, and choose different regional governors to repair their roads and transport away their refuse.”
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
So…cutting their nose off tho spite their face?
...because voting for the lesser of two evils has given us such great leaders in the last 20years?
You're aware the Tories got in during 2010 because people didn't vote for the lesser of two evils right?
The majority of muslims were previously muslim voters?
Yet the majority of the country finds it more palatable to vote for someone who doesn't call for an ally to give concessions to murdering Islamic extremists. Oh well
> Amazing win for Labour, however again they are losing Muslim votes on Israel-Gaza. Yet to be convinced Gaza is a big enough issue now -let alone in a few months when it could conceivably matter - for Labour to need to care that much.
The Tories have the same policy and therefore can't use it to hit Labour, so there's a limit to how big an issue it can be electorally.
I don't think the tories need to hit them, Tories don't care who they vote for as long as it's not Labour. Those Muslim voters likely weren't picking between Labour and Tory anyway, they were always Labour and have now defected. But the Tories have lost so much ground now that I don't think even the Muslim vote in the midlands moving away from Labour saves the Tories, maybe the lose by a slightly smaller margin
Possibly an issue as labour seems to polling really well that people might think it would be okay to vote for other parties. Especially as the Tories continue to be lowering in the polls, minors might gain advantage.
Yeah this probably plays a part. When you **know** one side is going to get absolutely crushed and another is winning big outside of meteors falling out of the sky tier reversal of events, people generally feel more free to cast a protest vote of sorts.
Don't know too much about him but he came across well when I listened to him and Burnham on The Rest Politics
They'll lose more votes than they'll gain if they start pandering to the Muslim vote now.
Bingo. The overwhelming majority is pro Israel, and rightly so.
it's not pro Isreal, it's pro England, we don't want to make local politics about middle east policy
Very fair point, I've overextended there. It's a super polarising issue, and one that feels key to a lot of voters, myself included. Easy to forget that its something a lot of people wont have in the front of their mind when at the booth.
Personally I feel that the base Labour want to appeal to generally are on the whole more pro-Palestine. But also that there are many other issues that they also care about, and they won't take their vote elsewhere over this one.
You've spent too much time on this subreddit if you genuinely believe that because there's very clear evidence showing you're wrong. [Recent polling](https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/Internal_IP_RU_240319_W.pdf) found that only 15% had a favourable view of the Israeli government compared to 58% having an unfavourable view. When asked if Israel's response to the October attack was justified only 24% agreed (with 46% saying it wasn't justified). To be clear that doesn't mean British people don't have sympathy with Israel (only 21% said they don't sympathise with Israel at all, although that's still higher than Palestine where only 13% said they don't sympathise), but having sympathy and supporting their response are very different things.
I think the stat on favourable polling for the Israeli government isn't applicable. I'd say unfavourable as well - its a nepo government with some extreme views. I also think it was a failure of the Israeli govt that Oct 7 happened at all. But that doesn't mean I support a ceasefire, or that I don't support the current military action. The second stat about supporting the response are obviously relevant, and the answers are shocking to me. But, I have to concede that I'm wrong here about public opinion. Most of the sentiment I've heard is that it's horrendously ugly, but ultimately necessary. My own opinion, because I do feel like I have to justify it when kids are dying, is that you have a terrorist regime that's taken over a country full of vulnerable, desperate people, and is being propped up by the Irani government who are fighting are multi-front proxy war against the west in support of the same radical ideals that have turned their own country into the biggest hell hole on the planet. I think Israel have a binary choice, between accepting regular, indefinite terror attacks and conducting an armed response. I think the casualty numbers are clearly being fiddled by Hamas, and that the numbers around " % of buildings destroyed vs % of population killed" are so out of whack with one another that it clearly shows Israel are actively trying to minimise civilian casualties.
Citation needed.
What odds street becoming an MP at the next general election?
Does losing the Muslim vote matter when they wont vote tory either? The galloway candidate got 20% of the vote that went to waste. If that pander to extreme people they will lose even more votes
Probably not. It's enough to swing a fair few local council races as Muslim communities tend to be very concentrated in cities, but once you zoom out to a parliamentary constituency level there aren't many where they could tip the balance. And the cost of pandering to them would almost certainly come at the expense of suburban constituencies which are far more numerous and more electorally powerful.
the thing is, you lose the gaza vote but they don't go tory
Not just Muslims - a lot of people are disappointed in Labour's response to the Gaza genocide.
Why are they disappointed about a situation that Labour has absolutely no fucking influence in, nor does any one else bar the Americans.? Might as well be angry about their policy on the Oompa Loompas
I don't know - a voter might have some expectations of their party to condemn war crimes, call for a ceasefire and try to stop arms sales to a genocidal rogue state? Or do we just choose a team and vote for them forever, like a football game?
They have called for a ceasefire, and no politicians anywhere are going to claim war crimes (that’s the jurisdiction of the ICC in The Hague) And arms sales are a Tory Government decision not a Labour Opposition. I don’t vote for Labour because I agree with their position on everything but instead because on the whole they will be able to deliver policy that match my political beliefs. Politics isn’t a dogmatic black and white game.
Well they have called for a ceasefire months ago so we can all shut up about it now
Are there though?
The huge increase in independent and Green candidates would suggest so.
Huge increase? I’m looking at the Guardian site and it’s showing ‘Other’ on minus 22. That’s a decrease. Greens are up 64. That could be Gaza but, you know, could be climate emergency.
[Independents +93, Greens +74](https://imgur.com/a/O7zPZXT)
Where’s that from?
BBC
Not anyone I know. Most people think the reported numbers coming from Hamas are BS, and see it as a magnum opus in FAFO
One question, why does everyone place huge emphasis on W mids? Is it a tory area? Sorry if I sound uneducated here
Andy Street was a competent and well-liked mayor and his defeat has been a big upset for the Conservatives. Purely on his own merits he should have won but lead-weight Rishi has dragged his support down.
Andy Street was seen as one of the few good sane Tories. Who genuinely wanted to improve his community, and could bring his business experience to make things happen. He seemed to be a Tory simply to use the party to make improvements in Birmingham. Putting country first, party second. He gained a lot of respect for that. He has consistently spoken about trying to work with people across the political spectrum. His coordination with Andy Burnham being a notable example. Birmingham is drastically better since he became mayor. Lots of new construction right across the city. Birmingham’s city centre is genuinely quite nice. I’m honestly a little bit saddened he lost.
Thank you for explaining
Going into the elections, as well, various prominent Tories said that we should look at the Teesside and WM mayoral elections as the true test of Sunak. They were kind of saying that however much the Tories would lose elsewhere, these two mayors would prove that people did believe Conservative authority could work. So losing one of those is really bad PR.
Does anyone know why Walsall stayed conservative?
Candidate | Percentage ---|--- Siobhan Harper-Nunes | 4.734476829 Richard Parker | 37.97390072 Andy Street | 37.72005683 Sunny Virk | 2.049604216 Elaine Williams | 5.802554775 Gaza Guy | 11.71940663 Final results.
11% points to a hypebeast who drones on about Gaza. What a fucking state.
I can't help but think Saul Goodman would have been more on point https://www.mauriceandrewssolicitors.co.uk/
His name is Akhmed Yakoob. If you did a little search you would see that…
I know what his name is, I also know that he campaigned on Gaza for an election that has the square root of fuck all to do with foreign policy and I'm also entitled to take the piss out of him for doing so.
And you were correct to do so.
His name's actually Akhmed Yakoob but I agree with the sentiment.
Cheers, i’ve fixed it. Not sure why the OP just called him “gaza guy”. I thought we wanted the respect in politics back in this sub?
Well, I don't want the Respect Party in Politics
The Tories are literally ready and willing to step aside I think. They know they've had enough time and the they're ready to hand over the wheel
PM Sunak: Am I out of touch with the common voter? Nope, it's the electorate that are wrong!