Peterborough by-election: Labour beats Brexit Party to hold seat The Labour Party has narrowly seen off a challenge from the Brexit Party to hold on to its Peterborough seat in a by-election. Union activist Lisa Forbes managed to retain the constituency for Labour, beating Nigel Farage's candidate Mike Greene by 683 votes. Ms Forbes hailed her "significant" victory and said it showed people had "rejected the politics of division". The Brexit Party said "no seat is safe" after its performance. Both parties had jostled for position as the bookmakers' favourite up until the result was announced. The recently formed Eurosceptic group was vying to secure its first MP after gaining 29 seats in the European elections two weeks ago.
They bombed 3 targets in Syria, cited as chemical weapons facilities, but you know this. Where is your line of questioning leading?
I didn’t know actually, I don’t follow events in Syria that closely, it’s too depressing. I’m wondering if the outcome of the OPCW apparently suppressing or hiding a minority input to its report is a bad thing. Neither the Assad regime or the Russians deny that Douma was being bombed. It’s just whether chemical weapons were used which is debated. And, as you say, the action was taken before the OPCW issued a report. Personally I think (on balance, it’s very complicated out there) that any action which damages the Assad regime is probably a good thing. It’s only an issue if you believe the organs of government and their surrogates don’t routinely lie to us anyway. I was under the impression that this is your basic assumption, and sometimes you are doubtless right. Let’s say they did lie on this occasion and chemical weapons weren’t used. Does that mean Assad doesn’t have chemical weapons and has never used them? If the targets hit by missiles were chemical weapons facilities, or even just part of his military infrastructure, surely this is good. And from the perspective of a dead or wounded child in Douma (sorry for the emotional manipulation) who gives a **** about the OPCW?
I guess its because theres not telling us the truth and theres slanting stories towards there bias from the government. But when its its meant to be an independent international body who chooses to not publish and facts on something as serious as a matter of this and are actively trying to suppress whoever published this, then going forward you will probably start questioning other things that "we have verified".
With justification. From my perspective the increasing erosion of trust in public representatives and institutions, national and international, will ultimately be a good thing, might get some change as a result. But I’m not holding my breath. In other news the right wing populists absolutely smashed in the Danish general elections. Oh dear how sad nevermind.
And how did the Social Democrats do it? By promising strict controls on immigration numbers. They stole the wolf's clothes
Take it up with The Guardian: "The DPP has always been something of a paradox, given that it appeals to many of the working-class voters who were once the Social Democrats’ base, has frequently put welfare at the centre of its campaigning, but has supported a series of rightwing governments that have radically curtailed the Danish model. The strategy of “winning back” voters from the DPP by adopting many of their positions on refugees and migration seems to have paid off."
That's one way of looking at it Kiwi - another is that the new party kicked the living daylights out of Labour and Tory in elections only a fortnight ago so really should have won last night especially when it was about getting a pro Brexit MP into an anti Brexit dominated Parliament..
The Danish Social Democrats did not win back seats, their % of the vote went down, but they gained just one more seat. The gains were made by 2 other parties on the Leftwing coalition who doubled their vote and do not share the immigration policies of the Social Democrats. The DPP lost half its seats, mostly to parties in the left humitarian party coalition, as the Guardian article says. Your copy/ paste does not include that. The far right vote fell. The Red block won 91 seat, Green 5 and Blue 75.
I prefer to think of it as a party who were at one point shorter odds than Spain are to beat the Faroes lost rather miserably.
No one's disputing that the far right vote fell. But the Guardian statement that the Social Democrat's strategy of winning back voters from the DPP by adopting DPP positions on refugees and migration has paid off, is clear. You seem to be suggesting the Guardian has it wrong.
No. You have not read or quoted the whole article. Social Democrats lost % of vote. 2 Left humanitarian parties against tough immigration policies doubled their vote.
I'm quoting it because it's the only paper that will convince you left wingers. If I'd quoted from the Telegraph, you'd have claimed bias!
