Today will be a busy day of polls. The first is a poll of GB News viewers:

May 30th-31st

LAB: 46% (+7)
CON: 25% (-3)
REF: 18% (-2)
LDEM: 6% (-)
GRN: 2% (-1)

If the Tories are losing these voters to Labour, then their outlook really isn't positive.

Quote from: BillyStubbsTears on Today at 08:45:03 am

Albie.

I'll say again.

What I'm struggling with is the fact that you posted comnents about Labour's rules on membership that are;
a) highly misleading and
b) nothing whatsoever to do with Shaheen's case.

That's it. Nothing more,nothing less.

BST,

Your points;

1)
The post is totally accurate.
What is misleading is your strange interpretation, which fails to see the link to the subsequent action in debarring Shaheen from standing.

2)
It is highly relevant, and central to the issue of eligibility to stand.

Labour are saying a member who wishes to stand, approved by Chingford Labour, cannot do so.
The democratic rights of Chingford Labour have thus been ignored.

Shaheens rights as a member are therefore restricted, and she does not hold the same status and privileges as other party members.
This is discriminatory, and potentially unlawful.

This is so far beyond weird, it's actually quite unsettling.

Last go.

YOU posted a quote from Osborne that was highly misleading.

That quote related to Prohibited Actions which automatically led to revocation of party membership.

The quote was misleading because it gave the impression, deliberately or not, that membership revocation  without appeal could happen arbitrarily. It didn't inform the reader about the very precise and limited circumstances in which that applies. The entire and sole purpose of my contribution was to make that clear.

None of that has ANYTHING to do with the Shaheen issue.

She's not had her membership revoked.

She's had her candidacy blocked.

The specific clauses we have been discussing say nothing whatsoever about eligibility to be a Labour candidate.

I genuinely haven't got a clue how and why you are conflating two totally and utterly separate issues, but I wish you well with whatever strange logic you are using.

No Syd, it is briefing from Labour HQ to try to set a news agenda.

On some occasions, the briefings are true.....other briefings are meant as disinformation.
It happens every day to lobby journos.

Albie.

I'll say again.

What I'm struggling with is the fact that you posted comnents about Labour's rules on membership that are;
a) highly misleading and
b) nothing whatsoever to do with Shaheen's case.

That's it. Nothing more,nothing less.

BST,

Your points;

1)
The post is totally accurate.
What is misleading is your strange interpretation, which fails to see the link to the subsequent action in debarring Shaheen from standing.

2)
It is highly relevant, and central to the issue of eligibility to stand.

Labour are saying a member who wishes to stand, approved by Chingford Labour, cannot do so.
The democratic rights of Chingford Labour have thus been ignored.

Shaheens rights as a member are therefore restricted, and she does not hold the same status and privileges as other party members.
This is discriminatory, and potentially unlawful.

Quote from: ChrisBx on Today at 01:08:17 pm

At 15:00, Farage will highly likelyannounce that he's standing as a candidate in the election.

The prospect of a Tory wipeout increases.

8th time (un)lucky?

Probably, unless there's two constituencies in which Reform are polling particularly well. (Assuming Tice has cherry-picked the area where they're strongest)

That won't stop him getting considerable TV/radio time during the campaign. Whatever you think of him, he's an effective campaigner and the Tories will be very worried about him/Reform diverting votes away from their party.