Every other seat in the country - bar Islington North and Corbyn - shows extensive tactical voting to unseat the Tories, so, yes I do absolutely expect that at least 40% would have held their nose.

Do I think what happened to her was fair? No, I don’t. But running out of spite sure is a very individualist approach to a political philosophy defined by the needs of the many outweighing the few.

Because I’m talking about people voting for her specifically, instead of Labour as a party.

She may well have been elected it she had still been the Labour candidate, but she wasn’t. Infact she got less votes than the person who was the Labour candidate.

After she was deselected, she chose to run herself. She chose to prioritise trying to prove Labour wrong instead of getting rid of IDS.

If she had won - like Corbyn - it would prove that she didn’t need to wear a Labour rosette to win. But she didn’t, so she does need it.

So all she has achieved in that is maintaining one of the worst Tories there is. The result matters, and she enabled that.

Coming third does not make it clear she would have won.

Corbyn winning does make it clear he would win, because, he did win.

Corbyn is - rightly - more popular than Labour in his constituency. She isn’t, and wasn’t.

strong grassroot support

Well, this is clearly not correct, because - unlike Corbyn where this is absolutely correct - she has never been elected, and has now lost twice.

Do I think it’s fair what happened? No, I don’t.

But goal #1 is to remove the Tories from Parliament. If you are not best placed to do that - and coming third proves she wasn’t - you need to put your ego aside and let someone else do it.

Again, is that fair? No, it isn’t.

A highly personal vote after representing the constituency for over 4 decades, it’s no real surprise that Corbyn retained. It’s also extremely unlikely he will vote against Labour on the vast majority of the programme.

Compare that to Chingford, where Shaheen insisted on running as an independent after being deselected (fairly or not doesn’t really matter), and having never actually won an election (let alone 40 years worth), and split the vote so much that the architect of food poverty in the UK, Iain Duncan Smith, managed to cling on to his seat.

Her ego got in the way of removing a proven sabateur from Parliament, that is unforgivable.

Funny how this just keeps happening, so strange.

There is already a fucking moat!

Pray tell, how should the oiks act?

Was?

The bill was 350m in the same way that the bill for a meal deal is >3.50, until the discount is applied.

When you pay, tesco don’t take all the money then give you a refund as two separate transactions, they apply the discount first, and you pay that price instead.

Telling people a meal deal costs 4.12 or whatever is the same claim, which is a clear lie.

We did send 350m to the EU. So it was just a claim about what we can do with it. As the savings not existing is a claim about future actions. Nothing will ever proove it was a lie

But here’s the thing, we literally didn’t, even the treasury confirmed it

https://fullfact.org/europe/membership-fee-eu/

Separately, your grammar and wording are fine. We all can be a bit more concise, but you aren’t repeating the same thing over and over so it genuinely isn’t a problem.

It is infinitely more important to write in a way that is clear and easy to understand, than it is to be ultra consice.

There is nothing wrong with always wanting to improve a skill, but if anyone has made you feel bad about how you write, they are wrong and should ignore them.

None of these are lies. Manipulation of the same family certainly. It was true that we sent £350 million per week to the EU, except it really wasn’t and yet if you offered evidence that it was a lie it’d be easy to produce evidence that it wasn’t. Truth is complex.

Just to nit pick a bit, because of how the rebate worked we literally didn’t transfer that 350m figure, as the discount was applied immediately, like, er, a meal deal? 😁

https://fullfact.org/europe/membership-fee-eu/

I agree this needs to be tackled, but I have a few thoughts.

What we saw with Johnson, et al, is that our system does not have protections in place against bad actors. All processes presume people are honourable. This is one of the main reasons why you cannot accuse another MP of lying in the Commons, but you can disagree, debate, bring other evidence, explain why their reasoning is wrong, etc.

That may sound like symantics, but lying isn’t the same as being wrong. Lying is when you know what you are saying is false, and you say it anyway.

And because things are less black and white than we’d like - especially in politics and economics, neither of which are hard science - you have a pretty big grey area where good faith research can show very different outcomes.

As such you’d need a burden of proof that is very pretty high, because you’d need to prove the person saying X knew it was false. If it isn’t high enough, then it would absolutely be abused by bad actors commissioning biased research to compel their opposition to stop saying X.

The 350m example, and Sunak’s 2k one, are both clearly lies. In the first case we literally didn’t send the money, and in the second the Civil Service had already told ministers privately the figures were not reliable.

Having these two examples being criminally prosecutable would absolutely be an improvement on our current postion, and waiting for perfect is worse than a step forward, but we’d need to be very very careful to not bring in legislation that can be abused by bad actors to silence legitimate opposition.

Yeah, but any other leader would be 20, 25, er, 30 points ahead!

Yes, and the members overwhelming rejected the attempt to add unrelated clauses to a bill in the final stages, thus keeping with convention.

The LibDems knew this would be the case, so it’s cheap posturing and point scoring aimed at people who don’t understand how the house operates.

My current theory is they purposefully try to cause splits in the left. There’s no other reasoning for them to continue to be this bad after very nearly a decade of continually publishing utter tosh.

So, this isn’t particularly difficult to investigate.

The Criminal Justice Bill has already passed the committee stage, see here:

https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3511

Amendments of the sort the Lib Dems tabled here are outside the scope of the bill, as described. See New Clause 91, just below division 152 here:

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2024-05-15/debates/70FB3786-C2A3-4CFE-90EA-CC2CB5AE5CCE/CriminalJusticeBill#division-51075

Unlike the USA, tacking unrelated stuff on to bills is not how our system works, especially at the final reading, which is why loads of members abstained (all of Labour, all of the SNP, even 6/15 Lib Dems, etc).

Now, do I want it to be a criminal offence to pump literal shit in to our drinking water? Of course I do, fuck the bastards.

But please don’t let yourself be tricked by this political gamesmanship.

I’d say The Canary should know better, but this sort of thing is why they are an absolute joke.

Edit: added link to clause and fixed typos

I don’t think the kids were clones, I think what they were actually doing was extracting midichlorians from them for tests using clones.

Omega was proof that a clone of Jango - who would all have the same m-count - can have it increased.

In turn when testing the blood of the clones / Omega, it being higher than that figure is proof that whatever modification they did had worked.