Oldham West and Royton by-election
Discussion
Scuffers said:
DragsterRR said:
It's not so much the number of postal votes.
Its the areas that the vast majority of those postal votes come from.
Yes postal voting is legit. But not if someone else if filling your vote in for you because you aren't allowed out.
or in Tower Hamlets, fabricate at least 10 people into every flat in a block!Its the areas that the vast majority of those postal votes come from.
Yes postal voting is legit. But not if someone else if filling your vote in for you because you aren't allowed out.
Farage may have a point.
The problem is that the hard right will often jump on stories that are pure fabrication, because they crave the idea that they are true, without thinking critically for themselves. Here's an example:
And here is Creasy's rebuttal:
"Reports that demonstrators rallied outside the house of Labour MP Stella Creasy were, it transpires, untrue.
She has issued a statement via her Facebook page in which she wrote: “For avoidance of doubt, I have no reason to believe Tuesday’s protest in Walthamstow went past my house."
But this story will be repeated as fact from now on by the right, despite it being a hoax for the gullible.
turbobloke said:
The Don of Croy said:
Norm Robinson on R4 this morning says Stella Creasy had protestors outside her house, as well as the more familiar Twitter abuse.
That would be the tolerant Left at work."Reports that demonstrators rallied outside the house of Labour MP Stella Creasy were, it transpires, untrue.
She has issued a statement via her Facebook page in which she wrote: “For avoidance of doubt, I have no reason to believe Tuesday’s protest in Walthamstow went past my house."
But this story will be repeated as fact from now on by the right, despite it being a hoax for the gullible.
Edited by BOR on Friday 4th December 17:04
BOR said:
And here is Creasy's rebuttal:
"Reports that demonstrators rallied outside the house of Labour MP Stella Creasy were, it transpires, untrue.
She has issued a statement via her Facebook page in which she wrote: “For avoidance of doubt, I have no reason to believe Tuesday’s protest in Walthamstow went past my house."
But this story will be repeated as fact from now on by the right, despite it being a hoax for the gullible.
Possibly. If so the entire House is seen as a target, probably with some justification."Reports that demonstrators rallied outside the house of Labour MP Stella Creasy were, it transpires, untrue.
She has issued a statement via her Facebook page in which she wrote: “For avoidance of doubt, I have no reason to believe Tuesday’s protest in Walthamstow went past my house."
But this story will be repeated as fact from now on by the right, despite it being a hoax for the gullible.
If she wanted to stir or calm the waters she could do either. Maybe they went past when she was out, or asleep, do you know personally? Creasy is a politician, her lips/fingers/keyboard were moving - so we must believe her. OK believe her, but this episode also demonstrates the point I was making about newspapers and sources.
The Mail said that demonstrators were "reportedly" outside her house, that refers to a primary source. If the story is inaccurate the primary source should be the target for your indignation. Contact the DM, find out who it was, and send them a sternly worded email. Not too stern, think of the tolerance. The Creasy story was also reportedly
presented to MPs in the House of Commons. No doubt some poor sod of an MP will soon be up for misleading the House.The Left are still overall an intolerant bunch regarding alternative opinions and voting intentions in comparison to the Right.
Pesty said:
performed poorly? they came second that's huge for a party that was nowhere a few years ago. a few polls said ukip would be second which they were.
almost every northerner and specifically locals on here said labour would win including me by the way.
its convenient for fraud and block voting by people going around collecting them from their communities and some other reasons which can be gotten around.
electoral fraud is a problem, being overlooked of course but it is a problem. yes absolutely i would and it speaks to your chip to even question that or even think its normal that people would want to keep it if it went their way, projection maybe because its helping parties you support possibly?
im all for democracy its the best of the worst systems as they say. its why we are the country we are today and I place a huge amount of importance on it being 100% fair which ever way that tips things. it should be clamped down on hard. otherwise it just becomes a sham and we might as well not bother. not that there are not other issues id also prefer proportional representation.
im not a ukip 'supporter' either i did sling a vote their way this last election which here is a waste of time. i like some of their policies and i like farage but most of the party is full of Muppets. in fact im not even sure who i want in power they are all a bunch of
s if you ask me. farage is the best of the worst for some policies i even like corbyn for others
Yes, performed poorly compared to whipped up expectations to cause upset. I like the 'chip' and 'projections' part. I'll keep them forever. 100% fair doesn't exist. What is fair to you will be unfair to someone else. Self-explanatory really. I'm not specialist on election formats, but this system seems to work. almost every northerner and specifically locals on here said labour would win including me by the way.
its convenient for fraud and block voting by people going around collecting them from their communities and some other reasons which can be gotten around.
electoral fraud is a problem, being overlooked of course but it is a problem. yes absolutely i would and it speaks to your chip to even question that or even think its normal that people would want to keep it if it went their way, projection maybe because its helping parties you support possibly?
im all for democracy its the best of the worst systems as they say. its why we are the country we are today and I place a huge amount of importance on it being 100% fair which ever way that tips things. it should be clamped down on hard. otherwise it just becomes a sham and we might as well not bother. not that there are not other issues id also prefer proportional representation.
im not a ukip 'supporter' either i did sling a vote their way this last election which here is a waste of time. i like some of their policies and i like farage but most of the party is full of Muppets. in fact im not even sure who i want in power they are all a bunch of
s if you ask me. farage is the best of the worst for some policies i even like corbyn for othersYou really think that Farage, with perfected 'bloke down the pub' is preferable leader to DC? Seriously?
Are they mostly serf serving? I think that they are. From options available the one currently in play is the least damaging.
Back to this by-election, this thread is indeed funny. If he doesn't have the proof he should come out with it. Farage should keep quiet, get a proof, and then come out with it. Like this it will be, quite rightly, dismissed as loser's whine.
Digga said:
jjlynn27 said:
Digga,
They are biased, because it's what sells and/or who is behind them. Judging by the number of links, in now defunct 'UKIP the future' threads, express and, the PH's favourite, breitbart, are heavily biased towards UKIP, and I'd imagine that there are others too.
'Owning' the media is a clever trick. Berlusconi was good at that, as is Erdogan. A good, truly free press is a bulwark for democracy, but having the mainstream media on-side for a two-party, flip-coin type of politics (which ensures neither party loses too often or for long - see USA) is not at all democratic IMHO.They are biased, because it's what sells and/or who is behind them. Judging by the number of links, in now defunct 'UKIP the future' threads, express and, the PH's favourite, breitbart, are heavily biased towards UKIP, and I'd imagine that there are others too.
jjlynn27 said:
Farage should keep quiet, get a proof, and then come out with it. Like this it will be, quite rightly, dismissed as loser's whine.
If I was a cynic I might think this way...UKIP came second. Usually the party that loses an election gets to put up a spokesman telling us how it was really a victory. UKIP claiming this one as a victory would be pushing credibility a bit, although one or two on this thread have been having a go at doing it for them. From the party's viewpoint, this election and its result will be chip paper by Saturday, and it is probably best to leave it that way.
On the other hand, by having a little bleat about what is essentially an accusation of election-rigging, UKIP manage to get a little more press coverage out of it.
Stage 2 comes when they actually find some evidence, or of course they don't find any. If they find some, Farage is all over the news again. If they don't, the whole thing gets conveniently forgotten except for the nagging doubts in a few minds on the lines of "no smoke without fire."
Let's face it, kipper or anti-kipper, the strategy is likely to play out a little better than last time's plan B, the resigning and unresigning fiasco.
jjlynn27 said:
Do you not think that we have free press in the UK? I don't know what to say to that, but would love to know who do you think, if you do, prevents the press from being free.
We have a press that is free to publish what it wants. However, what it wants is the critical consideration when it comes to whether we, the public, have a free press. Most of the press is pro tory.
That said, Murdoch is not politically motivated, but is biased. He has great influence with his media empire. He supports the party that will do his bidding. He supports the party he thinks will win. We are assured that he has no influence on the editorial direction of the papers, and I wonder how many people believe that.
His main consideration is not political but the interests of his media empire, particularly TV.
With all that power and authority one would assume that the politicians would take great pains to avoid being seen as partial in the matter, but how long after the election was it before Murdoch visited #10? Who was the person who visited the PM the most, outside of politicians in the first few weeks?
Murdoch gives orders. He wants the power of the BBC, his biggest threat by far, limited and eventually removed, and this is what PMs since Thatcher, apart from Major, have promised.
Gove, may and the other pretenders to the tory crown have all, during their attempts at self promotion, liaised with Murdoch, presumably to listen to what he requires to support their campaign.
There is a preponderance of right wing papers in this country. On the left we have the Guardian, run by a charity. Every other paper is owned by foreigners, that's going by their tax claims.
This is not how a free press was envisaged.
Things have moved on and the fourth estate is now generally regarded as TV and online news.
We are lucky in this country with the BBC and ITV news. Although they are limited by their licences, such as the need for balance, the government has, historically, withheld the big stick. This has changed to a limited extent recently with the criticism of the BBC news, on the laughable pretext of using the common name for ISIS and not the preferred one of those who wish to such up to Murdoch.
In a two party state, which we just about have at the moment, papers supporting a political point of view held by that party is not a good idea.
So if by a free press we mean the printed papers, then the old days of the squabbles amongst them, and attempts to get the news first with correspondents all over the world, are long gone.
ITN, to a large extent, relies on local journalists for its day to day international news, and to a significant extent UK/European news. This is not good for us. It has recently come under attack from various directions.
Sky News is a nonentity at the moment, with generally poor reporting, but once the BBC is destroyed, we will get the full effect of Fox. Want to know what that would be like? Have a look at Australian news outlets. Reporting there is all but controlled by Fox, and the poorer for it.
We see partial, filtered news in the papers. Don't kid yourself that we don't. But the editors are free to publish what they want (subject to the control of owners of course). Does that give us a free press?
The internet is a control on the partial press. Al Jazeera covers material that few UK papers bother about. The European press shows a different side to the EU than what the press barons feel is fit for us. So we in the UK have access to various 'colours' of press reports. It is just a shame that you have to go outside the country to get it.
rs1952 said:
Let's face it, kipper or anti-kipper, the strategy is likely to play out a little better than last time's plan B, the resigning and unresigning fiasco.
It was hilarious reading how devotees were falling over themselves to justify that particular disaster. From the precious little that I know, or care, about Oldham, it was always going to be walkover for Labour. People coming and saying 'just you wait, it'll be a surprise/very close' are delusional. Worshipping someone usually has that effect.
JC is doing expected, 'This is how country thinks' dance. It's not, it's how people who bothered to vote in Oldham think.
jjlynn27 said:
JC is doing expected, 'This is how country thinks' dance. It's not, it's how people who bothered to vote in Oldham think.
But he's a politician, and that's what politicians do.I am not a labour fan or voter (and even if I was it would be no bleedin' good voting for them around here, which is a Tory safe seat and we had a lib dem MP once), but personally I don't think JC should be either hailed as the New Messiah or written off. It's very early days yet.
His "new way of doing things" might end up as a shambles, or alternatively it might pick labour up a few million votes.
Just because the majority of the media and almost all of PH is out to get him doesn't necessarily mean that they are backing the right horse. I shall be reserving judgement until at least the May local elections.
jjlynn27 said:
Don't have any data, and haven't seen any polls but gut feeling is that he is making Labour unelectable. Some enclaves will obviously vote for Labour regardless, but overall, no. Good news for Tories.
The short term data agrees with you; YouGov reckon he's gone from 30% thinking he's doing a good job and 52% a bad job to 24%/65% in the last two weeks. The longer term shift in Labour popularity over the last 3 months is only 1% down, from 31% to 30%, so that's within the bounds of error and not significant.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff