Police commissioner elections.

[superblue24]

This is an informed comment on the by-election:

"But Labour said the Tories would be making a grave error if they thought the departure of Mensch explained the Tories' first loss of a seat to Labour in a byelection since Wirral South in February 1997. Ben Chapman won that seat three months before Labour's landslide general election victory.

One Labour source said: "Louise Mensch barely came up on the doorstep. People were much more concerned about jobs and the future of [nearby] Kettering general hospital. Corby is a microcosm of the country. The Tories should be worried."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/nov/16/corby-byelection-labour-swing-tories

The actual turnout in Corby was something like 45%,which is quite high for a by-election.Labour actually won the seat with a bigger swing from the Tories (12.67%)than when they took the seat in 1997.

When are you going to start using quotes from impartial sources instead of "Labour sources" and "The Guardian". Neither have any real substance as both are completely biased!

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

When are you going to start using quotes from impartial sources instead of "Labour sources" and "The Guardian". Neither have any real substance as both are completely biased!

I assume by "impartial sources", you mean the BBC which I (and others)have noted is your own favourite source of quotes?
If you check the Corby-by election thread you'll see I used a BBC link for that.
I'm not sure what "Labour sources" you're referring to here.As for the Guardian, I'd argue it's no more(or less)biased than other other newspaper you care to cite.

 

[superblue24]

I assume by "impartial sources", you mean the BBC which I (and others)have noted is your own favourite source of quotes?
If you check the Corby-by election thread you'll see I used a BBC link for that.
I'm not sure what "Labour sources" you're referring to here.As for the Guardian, I'd argue it's no more(or less)biased than other other newspaper you care to cite.

Your snippet, the first paragraph refers to what Labour had said and the second is a quote from a Labour source! Hardly impartial.

Take a look at who's in bed with The Guardian. I think you'll find it's the Labour party. It's a known fact that political parties use newspapers to influence voters.

 

[OldBlueLady]

Surely by not voting you opt out.

No. By not voting you are generally apathetic. If you genuinely voted to "opt out" you would be signifying your dissatisfaction.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Your snippet, the first paragraph refers to what Labour had said and the second is a quote from a Labour source! Hardly impartial.

Since the quote is clearly indicated as coming from a "Labour source" -presumably a local party member/canvasser or agent-I don't see any problem of partiality here.

Take a look at who's in bed with The Guardian. I think you'll find it's the Labour party. It's a known fact that political parties use newspapers to influence voters.

I think you'll find that The Guardian claims to be an independent newspaper.

In contrast to your assertion,it's a well know fact,at least to political scientists,that the vast majority of newspaper readers tend to disregard anything they read in a newspaper,which doesn't match their own political views.They literally blank it out.

 

[OldBlueLady]

I think you'll find that The Guardian claims to be an independent newspaper.

I think the fact that you quote from it so often convinces me that it's not very good at being independent!

 

[superblue24]

Since the quote is clearly indicated as coming from a "Labour source" -presumably a local party member/canvasser or agent-I don't see any problem of partiality here.



I think you'll find that The Guardian claims to be an independent newspaper.

In contrast to your assertion,it's a well know fact,at least to political scientists,that the vast majority of newspaper readers tend to disregard anything they read in a newspaper,which doesn't match their own political views.They literally blank it out.

An independent newspaper, are you sure?

http://m.guardian.co.uk/news/databl...ction-newspaper-support?cat=news&type=article

And that's a quote from your own "precious" Guardian. Shows them as Lib Dem in 2010, but the coalition has clearly pushed them back to Labour being a "centre-left" party (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian)

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

An independent newspaper, are you sure?

http://m.guardian.co.uk/news/databl...ction-newspaper-support?cat=news&type=article

And that's a quote from your own "precious" Guardian. Shows them as Lib Dem in 2010, but the coalition has clearly pushed them back to Labour being a "centre-left" party (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian)

That is of course the Guardian's traditional default political position.Their support for the LibDems in 2010 was more in the nature of a blip(IMO).
The fact that they did support the Lib/Dems in 2010 is,of course, evidence of their independence.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

I think the fact that you quote from it so often convinces me that it's not very good at being independent!

I'm independently biased.:winking: