Maybe they’ve used the chippy approach and suggested they don’t vote for the leader of the party, merely whoever their local candidate is.I’m unsure on this Stats for Lefties, are they a bot for the Conservative party, or media partners?
Strangely, they don’t mention that in the same poll, Labour are leading by a couple of points on how people intend to vote, so seems that you are here to bait those with cheery picked data that doesn’t really have a shred of truth from one day to the next.
I’m unsure on this Stats for Lefties, are they a bot for the Conservative party, or media partners?
Strangely, they don’t mention that in the same poll, Labour are leading by a couple of points on how people intend to vote, so seems that you are here to bait those with cheery picked data that doesn’t really have a shred of truth from one day to the next.
Nah. I'm just waiting for him to be 20 points ahead. As we were promised.
That doesn't paint him in a favorable light either.
Nah. I'm just waiting for him to be 20 points ahead. As we were promised.
That doesn't paint him in a favorable light either.
Nah. I'm just waiting for him to be 20 points ahead. As we were promised.
That doesn't paint him in a favorable light either.
They published one 2 days before on there that had them at 26% and 25% with 48% not knowing. Seems like it all depends who you ask…..I love how this is phrased....
"biggest lead since Dec 2021....."
What they mean is its the biggest lead in 3 months... not an earth-shattering stat. Especially when you consider that the focus has been off domestic politics for the last month.
Awkward
It’s only polite for a party leader to do what Starmer did, especially if he was unaware of the background.Other than looking like Lebedev all but declaring for Johnson, I guess this isn't an issue if Starmer didn't know about shenanigans over the appointment but instead trusted that the system wasn't overruled.
Edit: I see Lebedev put this out just after the BBC piece immediately above about Labour pushing to look into it.
It’s only polite for a party leader to do what Starmer did, especially if he was unaware of the background.
Like you say, the timing stinks and looks like it was ordered by his bessie Johnson.
I’m still unsure why they can’t disclose it as it was a decision that was a public one and in the interest of those that they serve.Apparently being reported that multiple other new peers received an identical message. Presumably its just standard protocol to send a message to all new appointments.
A pretty desperate deflection tactic which makes you wonder how dodgy the information they are being pressured to disclose is.
Apparently being reported that multiple other new peers received an identical message. Presumably its just standard protocol to send a message to all new appointments.
A pretty desperate deflection tactic which makes you wonder how dodgy the information they are being pressured to disclose is.
Awkward
Strangely enough if the purging criteria was applied consistently both he and that **** Akehurst could be expelled having previously endorsed AWL or at least one of their campaigns. Obviously it won't happen just adds to the stench of hypocrisy.He should resign. He wont though, he is too busy expelling left wingers from the party.