Meanwhile, UKIP still sit on zero seats and only got ~1.8% of the vote share, a full 10.8% less than only two years ago.
GAME OVER.
Five questions to ask before you vote.
Moderators: Admin, Ralph, asl, Robin
-
- Posts: 29813
- Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
No doubt the biased BBC will continue to give them massively more air time than their vote share and parliamentary representation warrants. Vote share basically the same as Greens, who also have an MP - but will the Tories at the BBC give the Greens as much air time as Ukip? No chance.Johnsons Red Army wrote:Meanwhile, UKIP still sit on zero seats and only got ~1.8% of the vote share, a full 10.8% less than only two years ago.
GAME OVER.
But don't the Tories accuse the BBC having a left wing bias?RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote:No doubt the biased BBC will continue to give them massively more air time than their vote share and parliamentary representation warrants. Vote share basically the same as Greens, who also have an MP - but will the Tories at the BBC give the Greens as much air time as Ukip? No chance.Johnsons Red Army wrote:Meanwhile, UKIP still sit on zero seats and only got ~1.8% of the vote share, a full 10.8% less than only two years ago.
GAME OVER.
-
- Posts: 29813
- Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
The Mail does for commercial reasons and to help Lord Rothermere and Dacre continue to hijack democracy. Tories grab on the coat tails, and Mail readers lap it up like morons.Red Duke wrote:But don't the Tories accuse the BBC having a left wing bias?RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote:No doubt the biased BBC will continue to give them massively more air time than their vote share and parliamentary representation warrants. Vote share basically the same as Greens, who also have an MP - but will the Tories at the BBC give the Greens as much air time as Ukip? No chance.Johnsons Red Army wrote:Meanwhile, UKIP still sit on zero seats and only got ~1.8% of the vote share, a full 10.8% less than only two years ago.
GAME OVER.
In general, and in fairness, the BBC fall into the impartiality trap by having people from both sides. Obvious example is climate change, where 90% of scientists agree but the BBC have a debate with one scientist and one denier, and it comes across like a 50/50 debate rather than a consensus. If they were impartial and had nine scientists debating one denier it would look like bullying, and if they only featured the denier a tenth of the time as a scientist they would be accused of bias. The only way to solve it in this example is to cut back on their output, and rather than having debates and such like, just have a newsreader read out that 90% of scientists agree. Then the facts are presented, with no need to worry about impartiality or bias.
-
- Posts: 29813
- Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
As predicted, Labour majority increased. No doubt we'll all be celebrating in the artisan coffee shops and bakeries of Whitley Bay this weekend.RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote:I know, since 1952 or something. That was before all us metropolitan educated millennials moved out there. General rule at the Coast in North Tyneside is the more Southern and Scottish accents you here and the fewer vans you see, the stronger the Labour vote, and vice versa. Tories haven't realised that yet so are pissing in the wind.Red Duke wrote:
Not so long ago Tynemouth was a Tory seat up to 1997. The MP was Neville Trotter.
-
- Posts: 29813
- Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Don't hear any Tories singing. Biggest increase in Labour vote share since 1945 election. Corbyn outperformed Blair in '97 on that front. When everyone thought he'd lose more and in the face of the Mail/Sun propaganda campaign it feels like progress and a reason to celebrate. Seems to have got you and your kind angry so that's another bonus.Malabus wrote:Labour won fuuck all - sort your life out RCS
-
- Posts: 29813
- Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
Gained seats and increased vote share. I suggest you look at the Tory-Ukip performance before slagging off those who had a positive night.Malabus wrote:Same number seats Labour when lost in 2010.
Stop polishing a turd.
You are in cloud cuckoo land if you think their 29 seats gained is a remarkable achievement. Gains on a manifesto of lies, I might add.RegencyCheltenhamSpa wrote:Gained seats and increased vote share. I suggest you look at the Tory-Ukip performance before slagging off those who had a positive night.Malabus wrote:Same number seats Labour when lost in 2010.
Stop polishing a turd.
-
- Posts: 29813
- Joined: 21 Nov 2009, 03:27
I didn't say it was magnificent. Just positive and moving in the right direction. Tories wanted to get a big majority. Labour stopped them getting any majority. That was the first battle of the war.
As for lies, lol. After years of you posting lies from your gutter press and right-wing nutjob blogs you have no authority to accuse anyone of lies.
Good night for Labour. Bad night for May. That's the end of it. You can keep moaning about the result, or, like me you can accept it and concentrate on May (or replacement) negotiating a good Brexit deal for Britain.
As for lies, lol. After years of you posting lies from your gutter press and right-wing nutjob blogs you have no authority to accuse anyone of lies.
Good night for Labour. Bad night for May. That's the end of it. You can keep moaning about the result, or, like me you can accept it and concentrate on May (or replacement) negotiating a good Brexit deal for Britain.