I wouldn’t be surprised if Starmer was at risk - his constituency is pretty close to Corbyn’s and those unhappy with him tried to embarrass him at the last election. Now factor in the ‘Tinkerbell’ effect where people start believing the fringe parties have a realistic chance of winning and are dissatified with his leadership and you can see how it could play out.
Lammy I think would be more difficult to unseat, I think his constituency is in Tottenham and would still be more likely to vote Labour.
I would also flag that the source you have linked to is pretty close to the left/ Corbyn supporting element of the party so have reason to push a narrative where both of the above could lose their seats at the next election.
From what I remember, they’re not a source worth using at all? I think the ratings I used to see about them were that they were pretty much the GBeebies of the left. But the thing that catches my eye is that their source is Electoral Calculus. The thing is, Electoral Calculus is quite speculative but it also tends to be more sensitive to movements in polling as well. Not to be discounted easily, but also heaps of salt.
This touches on an issue that’s worth discussion. Our election cycle means we move through 5 year cycles. Everything publicly funded, and wider thinking about it, is forced to move in this cycle with different funding levels, constraints and policies.
A single change in policy or funding and you’re back to the drawing board on how you move forward. I wonder how much that has cost over the years?
To be fair, the tories used this country like a toilet for 14 years yet I’ve haven’t heard labour pointing the finger as much as they might. They’re far from perfect themselves, of course, but people here do have short memories about the grift, sleaze, dishonesty, corruption and downright vile nastiness of those tory cunts.
Erm you did hear about the sleaze of free gear keir etc, and Angela had issues with her mortgage etc.
On a national level , as you say way behind the tories, but on a personal level they still extract more than what they should and it has the stench of corruption.
Whilst I recognise the horror and mass genocide being carried out in the Middle East, and it being a situation that may affect you personally, I (speaking for myself) find Novara Media reporting as biased as the organisations it tries to pull up.
Referring to the attached link. The reporter Harriet Williamson, sensationalises the story as ‘The secret IDF strategies, the BBC doesn’t want you to see’. But by going off her own report this information is already mainstream, I mean an IDF figure was quoted by Reuters back in 2008. So what are the BBC hiding in regards to War strategy? I know there was news about phone.
Furthermore, but the Centre for Media Monitoring the reporter refers to, is by its own Webpage, self funded and its aim is to promote Muslim/Islam values.
Findings In separate CFMM report, about Media Bias, refers to the Guardian and the BBC as left leaning outlets and at 6%, the BBC scored the lowest in reporting stories considered biased - by a scoring system based on biased opinion.
Please be assured, I am not trying to down play the “real News” the atrocities behind the story. It is important that people keep raising their voices in protest to any acts of suppression, and oppose war. However, it is just as important for it to be balanced and fair.
I think the issue here is that Novarra Media are competing in an algorithm ruled, social media based content ecosystem and that kind of sensationalist headline, while perhaps disingenuous, is entirely in keeping with the kind of thing that draws attention and gets your content seen.
And while I understand that much of what Novarra are referring to in this piece is already in the mainstream, it does have to be said that the BBC has a track record of under-reporting the genocide in Gaza.
