General Election

[BillyStubbsTears]

Some mind-blowing projections being published by Electoral Calculus tonight.

Seat projection:

LAB: 476 
CON: 66
LD: 59 
Green: 2
Reform: 0

Under this projection, James Cleverly, Penny Mourdant, Kemi Badenoch, and Jacob Rees-Mogg would all lose their seats.

While we're still 5 weeks away from polling day, Electoral Calculus were accurate in predicting the outcome of the 2019 at a similar stage in the campaign.

If that were to happen, I think it would be the highest number of seats any party had ever won. More even than 1931 when the majority of the Labour MPs joined the Tories to form a coalition in the battle against the Great Depression.

That's really not healthy. But given where the parties were in 2019, it's an almost unbelievable success for Labour.

[Superspy]

I can understand why that wouldn't be healthy from the point of view of it being important to have a strong opposition to hold the government to account, but at least if the result was that big, it would demonstrate that our kind of democracy itself is healthy - and it feels like we need that demonstration right now. That when a party has taken the piss for so long, that the country can collectively come together to say "enough is enough" and use an election to bring about change - unlike the things we're seeing in America right now where democracy is being made (primarily by one side) to look like a bad joke.

None of the 52/48 shit like we had with Brexit, and not needing to wake up after the election and say things like "How can so many people continue to support the Tories after partygate, PPE contracts, Trussenomics, etc, etc" would certainly give me a sigh of relief. And I say all of that as the textbook definition of a floating voter. I voted Tory in 2019. I won't be doing so this time.

[River Don]

Politics is becoming far more unstable, everywhere

Sumat is up.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Politics is becoming far more unstable, everywhere

Sumat is up.

In America, this is the product of a long game.

Back in the 90s, Newt Gingrich saw the writing on the wall for the Republicans. Americans were getting better educated, more urbanised, more diverse and on average, younger. All those demographic drivers helped the Democrats. Plus, the Right hand no driving socio-economic philosophy. And they'd lost the Cold War threat that traditionally gave the Republicans the edge as a party that was for a strong military.

He wrote an influential argument that, in couched terms, but unmistakably called for a move to Culture War, to find cleavage points where they could strengthen the support of their base by sending the message that the Govt, and the liberals and the gays and the minorities were all trying to smash down true Americans.

They've been pushing that message for 30 years. The obvious conclusion is that a savvy narcissistic criminal like Trump takes that to the nth degree. So now you have him screaming conspiracies daily, trying to torment a coup, and getting prosecuted and STILL 40% love him.

And it's not going to get any better even if he loses this year. Those attitudes are now baked in for a generation at least.

If he wins, God help American democracy.

[albie]

Keith is just the front man, the Labour machine is run by Morgan McSweeney in HQ.

They have decided to put a lid on the comms disaster for now.

After the GE, they will concoct a pretext to isolate Abbott.
Same tactics used against Lloyd Russell-Moyle and Shaheen.

Next targets will probably be Apsana Begum and Dawn Butler, unless they get cold feet after this foul up.

Don't forgot only last Friday Keith was briefing the media that DA was subject to an ongoing investigation, awaiting conclusion...now seen to be clearly untrue.

I’ve not heard of Morgan McSweeney.
Is he the Labour version of Cummings, who was apparently running the country when Boris was PM.

Morgan Mcsweeney is former Labour Chief of Staff, now Director of Campaigns since 2021.
He was involved with a strategy think tank called "Labour Together", which acts as a conduit between sponsors and the party policy development;
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/keir-starmer-prime-minister-morgan-mcsweeney-investigation-65fnh8zrt
Full article here;
https://archive.ph/AeaRS

It is a bit like the "Tufton St" network of paid influencers who advise the Tories, and shape the policy agenda.

Mcsweeney is seen as the organ grinder behind the monkey Keith, and is comparable to Alastair Campbell or Peter Mandelson, pulling the strings off stage.
This article by Peter Oborne sets out his view of the Labour shenanikins;
https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/keir-starmer-drawing-terrifying-blueprint-uk

[Sprotyrover]

Keith is just the front man, the Labour machine is run by Morgan McSweeney in HQ.

They have decided to put a lid on the comms disaster for now.

After the GE, they will concoct a pretext to isolate Abbott.
Same tactics used against Lloyd Russell-Moyle and Shaheen.

Next targets will probably be Apsana Begum and Dawn Butler, unless they get cold feet after this foul up.

Don't forgot only last Friday Keith was briefing the media that DA was subject to an ongoing investigation, awaiting conclusion...now seen to be clearly untrue.

I’ve not heard of Morgan McSweeney.
Is he the Labour version of Cummings, who was apparently running the country when Boris was PM.

Morgan Mcsweeney is former Labour Chief of Staff, now Director of Campaigns since 2021.
He was involved with a strategy think tank called "Labour Together", which acts as a conduit between sponsors and the party policy development;
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/keir-starmer-prime-minister-morgan-mcsweeney-investigation-65fnh8zrt
Full article here;
https://archive.ph/AeaRS

It is a bit like the "Tufton St" network of paid influencers who advise the Tories, and shape the policy agenda.

Mcsweeney is seen as the organ grinder behind the monkey Keith, and is comparable to Alastair Campbell or Peter Mandelson, pulling the strings off stage.
This article by Peter Oborne sets out his view of the Labour shenanikins;
https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/keir-starmer-drawing-terrifying-blueprint-uk

It’s good to see Labour getting rid of the discontented who all seem to be pursuing an different and clearly selfish agenda , but I will be voting Tory!

[albie]

If you read the Oborne article in Middle East Eye, you will see that the selfish agenda is being pursued by the Starmerroids, Sproty.

The most chilling section is where Oborne says that:
"A new clause has been added to the Labour rulebook, which reads: “Neither the principles of natural justice nor the provisions of fairness … shall apply to the termination of party membership.” This is astonishing in what claims to be a democratic party."

Quite so, and it is strange that Labour supporters are not up in arms about this.
They appear to be saying that the new Labour rules over-ride the laws of the UK, a ridiculous suggestion.

[BillyStubbsTears]

If you read the Oborne article in Middle East Eye, you will see that the selfish agenda is being pursued by the Starmerroids, Sproty.

The most chilling section is where Oborne says that:
"A new clause has been added to the Labour rulebook, which reads: “Neither the principles of natural justice nor the provisions of fairness … shall apply to the termination of party membership.” This is astonishing in what claims to be a democratic party."

Quite so, and it is strange that Labour supporters are not up in arms about this.
They appear to be saying that the new Labour rules over-ride the laws of the UK, a ridiculous suggestion.

Albie.

Do your homework and look into this a bit more deeply before you start clutching your pearls.

What actions do that clause apply to?

[albie]

Prohibited acts, BST.
What is your point?

This earlier article by Oborne links through to the Labour rulebook;
https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/uk-labour-starmer-authoritarianism-alarm-bells-ringing

"Neither the principles of natural justice nor
the provisions of fairness in Chapter 2, Clause
II.8 shall apply to the termination of Party
membership pursuant to Chapter 2, Clauses
I.4.A and C."

This is presumably what Faiza Shaheen is taking legal advice about.
Shaheen was criticised for a retweet of a post that refers to the Israeli lobby.
The existence of that lobby is a historical fact, and has been evident for many years past.

Wait for it to litigate out.

Which Labour rule has she broken, and is that rule itself lawful?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Prohibited acts, BST.
What is your point?

This earlier article by Oborne links through to the Labour rulebook;
https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/uk-labour-starmer-authoritarianism-alarm-bells-ringing

"Neither the principles of natural justice nor
the provisions of fairness in Chapter 2, Clause
II.8 shall apply to the termination of Party
membership pursuant to Chapter 2, Clauses
I.4.A and C."

This is presumably what Faiza Shaheen is taking legal advice about.
Shaheen was criticised for a retweet of a post that refers to the Israeli lobby.
The existence of that lobby is a historical fact, and has been evident for many years past.

Wait for it to litigate out.

Which Labour rule has she broken, and is that rule itself lawful?

And what actions do Clauses 1.4A and C cover?

In your own time.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Every time you think this Tory party has scraped the bottom of the barrel bare, they surprise you.

https://x.com/KemiBadenoch/status/1796531593814941810

This is f**king disgusting.

The background is that Brianna Grey's parents, who live in Nichols's constituency, were wanting her to be formally recorded as having lived as a female before she was murdered.

Badenoch uses this as yet another Culture War front, because all she's bothered about is showing the bigots in the Tory party membership how much she's on their side when the post-Election dog fight starts.

She is f**king repulsive.

[albie]

BST,
I have literally just told you...prohibited acts!

See here:
https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Rule-Book-2023-FINAL_web_v3.pdf

Now do you have a point, I suspect not?

[BillyStubbsTears]

And what are the "prohibited acts"?

In your own time.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Kuenssberg: Labour stumble.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c7220exjzvno

British people: Err, nope.
https://x.com/BritainElects/status/1796979289667055976

Opinium is an interesting one. They e consistent reported the lowest Labour leads and the highest Tory support. That's because a lot of people who voted Tory last time, say they won't vote this time. And Opinium have assumed they all will, and will vote Tory.

So if even THEY are saying Labour are 20% ahead, that's some statement.

Kuenssberg though, eh? f**k me...

[wilts rover]

Interesting. Which party does this candidate support (zoom in on the text bottom left) - and people accuse Labour of being dishonest!!!

https://x.com/theobertram/status/1796880844667109642

[Not Now Kato]

Largan also has exactly the same poster in pale blue except it says Reform for Robert. Is this not against electoral rules?

[MachoMadness]

Interesting. Which party does this candidate support (zoom in on the text bottom left) - and people accuse Labour of being dishonest!!!

https://x.com/theobertram/status/1796880844667109642

That is quite incredible to be honest. Surely that has to break some law or another.

[drfchound]

It is incredible and very crafty.
However on the voting slip it will say his name and which Party he represents.

[BillyStubbsTears]

https://x.com/DerbysPolice/status/1797013089017106619

[ncRover]

If you read the Oborne article in Middle East Eye, you will see that the selfish agenda is being pursued by the Starmerroids, Sproty.

The most chilling section is where Oborne says that:
"A new clause has been added to the Labour rulebook, which reads: “Neither the principles of natural justice nor the provisions of fairness … shall apply to the termination of party membership.” This is astonishing in what claims to be a democratic party."

Quite so, and it is strange that Labour supporters are not up in arms about this.
They appear to be saying that the new Labour rules over-ride the laws of the UK, a ridiculous suggestion.

Watch until the end. Lloyd Russell-Moyle in 2021:

https://x.com/tonymc39/status/1796105512586559731?s=46

Wasn’t it around this time that the hard-left were saying that any other opposition leader would be further ahead in the polls?

Sproty is right. These people just want to be protestors forever because it suits their capabilities.

[DonnyOsmond]

Keith is just the front man, the Labour machine is run by Morgan McSweeney in HQ.

They have decided to put a lid on the comms disaster for now.

After the GE, they will concoct a pretext to isolate Abbott.
Same tactics used against Lloyd Russell-Moyle and Shaheen.

Next targets will probably be Apsana Begum and Dawn Butler, unless they get cold feet after this foul up.

Don't forgot only last Friday Keith was briefing the media that DA was subject to an ongoing investigation, awaiting conclusion...now seen to be clearly untrue.

I’ve not heard of Morgan McSweeney.
Is he the Labour version of Cummings, who was apparently running the country when Boris was PM.

Morgan Mcsweeney is former Labour Chief of Staff, now Director of Campaigns since 2021.
He was involved with a strategy think tank called "Labour Together", which acts as a conduit between sponsors and the party policy development;
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/keir-starmer-prime-minister-morgan-mcsweeney-investigation-65fnh8zrt
Full article here;
https://archive.ph/AeaRS

It is a bit like the "Tufton St" network of paid influencers who advise the Tories, and shape the policy agenda.

Mcsweeney is seen as the organ grinder behind the monkey Keith, and is comparable to Alastair Campbell or Peter Mandelson, pulling the strings off stage.
This article by Peter Oborne sets out his view of the Labour shenanikins;
https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/keir-starmer-drawing-terrifying-blueprint-uk

It’s good to see Labour getting rid of the discontented who all seem to be pursuing an different and clearly selfish agenda , but I will be voting Tory!

May I ask, how come?

[wilts rover]

Anyone who is saying they are going to vote Tory willing to explain or excuse this:

[BillyStubbsTears]

And what are the "prohibited acts"?

In your own time.

Anything?

Ok, I'll answer it for you.

The specific "Prohibited Acts" referred to by clause I.4A are defined in clause I.4B
as standing as a candidate for another party, and taking legal action against the Labour party that is classed by the judge in court as vexatious.

Clause I.4C gives, for each of those Acts, the specific documentary evidence that would conclusively and unarguably prove that the particular Act had taken place. Such as a copy of the nomination paper putting the member forward as a candidate for another party.

Now, I assume you agree that a person who stands for, say, Galloway's party, or indeed any other party, cannot remain a member of the Labour party. Neither can someone who brings deliberately troublemaking legal action against the Labour party so unambiguously that the judge takes the rare step of throwing it out of court as vexatious.

Agreed?

So, onto the "Natural Justice" thing.

What that means in law is that, in some but not all cases, the accused person has the right to a fair hearing.

But it doesn't apply to all processes. Specifically in this case, if the Labour party has documentary evidence that a Prohibited Act has taken place, they are under no legal obligation (or moral one) to allow the member to have a hearing to explain themselves. If they have stood for another party, they have stood for another party. There's no discussion of "why" or "how" to be had. They are out.

Agreed?

I used to have a lot of respect for Oborne. But that is shit journalism. He could have explained the detail behind those ckauses. But he didnt. He, either deliberately or through crap research, misled readers with something designed to wind up the gullible who are already convinced that Starmer is the devil incarnate. And of course it's been shared and forwarded by loads of people, like yourself. Ensuring it gets wide readership.

I wonder why he, a lifelong right winger, is doing that?

[IDM]

In other words, immediate dismissal for gross misconduct, like in most work environments.?

[BillyStubbsTears]

That's pretty much it IDM.

Plus of course, it insulates Labour from  being dragged down by interminable appeals by deliberate infiltrators.

[albie]

BST,

Your post 352 seems to be based on a complete misunderstanding of the point Oborne is making.
Oborne is talking about the revisions which apply to MEMBERSHIP.

Shaheen has been excluded from CANDIDACY, but her membership remains in place.
 
By the logic of your first point, are you saying that the inclusion of Tory defectors, like Natalie Elphicke or Christian Wakeford, meet those membership criteria?
Or Luciana Berger, who stood for the LibDems against Labour?

Consider the reasons given for the removal of Faiza Shaheen as a Labour candidate.
Liking tweets referring to the Green Party before she joined Labour, or retweeting a comedy sketch about the Israeli lobby, or commenting on her own experience of Islamophobia in Labour.

Now read the rules again, and point out the specific offence that means an automatic exclusion from being a candidate.
Not her membership, which is still valid, but her candidacy supported by her local party.

What is the "prohibited act" that is proven, and leads to disqualification as a CANDIDATE?
Is any such "prohibited act" lawfully included in the rulebook, and consistent with UK legislation on natural justice?

I have an open mind, I consider this unproven until it has been tested in the courts.
In your own time.

[Not Now Kato]

https://x.com/DerbysPolice/status/1797013089017106619

 
Seems Robert Largan has previous
 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-66742672

[Sprotyrover]

https://x.com/DerbysPolice/status/1797013089017106619

 
Seems Robert Largan has previous
 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-66742672

Wow! “Off with his Head!”

[drfchound]

https://x.com/DerbysPolice/status/1797013089017106619

 
Seems Robert Largan has previous
 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-66742672

Wow! “Off with his Head!”

Well, he did apologise.
Isn’t it ok if an MP apologised for an error.

[BillyStubbsTears]

BST,

Your post 352 seems to be based on a complete misunderstanding of the point Oborne is making.
Oborne is talking about the revisions which apply to MEMBERSHIP.

Shaheen has been excluded from CANDIDACY, but her membership remains in place.
 
By the logic of your first point, are you saying that the inclusion of Tory defectors, like Natalie Elphicke or Christian Wakeford, meet those membership criteria?
Or Luciana Berger, who stood for the LibDems against Labour?

Consider the reasons given for the removal of Faiza Shaheen as a Labour candidate.
Liking tweets referring to the Green Party before she joined Labour, or retweeting a comedy sketch about the Israeli lobby, or commenting on her own experience of Islamophobia in Labour.

Now read the rules again, and point out the specific offence that means an automatic exclusion from being a candidate.
Not her membership, which is still valid, but her candidacy supported by her local party.

What is the "prohibited act" that is proven, and leads to disqualification as a CANDIDATE?
Is any such "prohibited act" lawfully included in the rulebook, and consistent with UK legislation on natural justice?

I have an open mind, I consider this unproven until it has been tested in the courts.
In your own time.

Albie.

I really haven't got a clue what you are on about

YOU posted a comment by Oborne that it was chilling that Labour had introduced a clause denying natural justice in cases of expulsion.

In post 336, you said:

The most chilling section is where Oborne says that:
"A new clause has been added to the Labour rulebook, which reads: “Neither the principles of natural justice nor the provisions of fairness … shall apply to the termination of party membership.” This is astonishing in what claims to be a democratic party."

You said:

They appear to be saying that the new Labour rules over-ride the laws of the UK, a ridiculous suggestion.

The first quote was totally misleading.

The second one was flat wrong.

When I pointed out the actual facts, you've now gone into a rant about me not understanding that Oborne is talking about membership (I know that thank you) while you are talking about candidacy.

Except you WEREN'T talking about candidacy in your post 336 to which I replied. You were talking about membership.

Do you think maybe a bit of reading what you've actually said and what I've replied to before flying off the handle might help?