www.mirror.co.uk/news/politic...
This is all still the echoing consequences of one bad vote in 2016.
RFM: 47 (+40)
LDM: 32 (+10)
CON: 13 (-15)
LAB: 12 (-30)
GRN: 11 (+3)
Ind: 5 (-4)
Local: 3 (-3)
SNP: 1 (-1)
PLC: 1 (=)
Explore: electionmaps.uk/byelections-...
But here's proof showing off to JP Morgan despite destruction of some of the "rarest creatures in our country."
Let's make that description Labour votes.
www.theguardian.com/environment/...
This would be pure chaos under first past the post.
RFM: 27% (-2)
LAB: 20% (-2)
CON: 17% (+1)
LDM: 17% (+2)
GRN: 12% (+1)
SNP: 4% (+1)
Via @yougov.co.uk, 5-6 Oct.
Changes w/ 28-29 Sep.
Everybody thinks she's lazy, but actually she's very busy trying to get back to her own timeline.
Everybody thinks she's lazy, but actually she's very busy trying to get back to her own timeline.
www.subwaybuilder.com
That was a settled question long before this match in 1998. This kind of radicalisation by online racists would harm Reform
2. Doing it right means doing it when it has effect and not just reaching for it as a comfort blanket against Reform.
If they're going to do it, I think they need to be very specific about what is racist and why it's racist, otherwise it just comes across as crying wolf.
(2) I absolutely do not believe this is a vote loser for Labour, especially if done right and with conviction
Activists like it, but the median voter will feel attacked.
📊 @bwalker.uk
2. Doing it right means doing it when it has effect and not just reaching for it as a comfort blanket against Reform.
If they're going to do it, I think they need to be very specific about what is racist and why it's racist, otherwise it just comes across as crying wolf.