woody2 Posted April 22, 2018 Share Posted April 22, 2018 48 minutes ago, mojomonkey said: I've never been a labour voter but in the interests of clarity, how are you measuring success here? Corbyn achieved a larger percentage of the vote in the last general election than Kinnock ever did in any of the general elections when he was leader. I assume you are therefore measuring success by some other term? that doesn't matter, may did better than "call me dave" but its irrelevant in an election, its the number of mp's that matter....... he got less mp's than kinnock. at least kinnock had the sense to resign and let someone else lead the party..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojomonkey Posted April 22, 2018 Share Posted April 22, 2018 20 minutes ago, woody2 said: that doesn't matter, may did better than "call me dave" but its irrelevant in an election, its the number of mp's that matter....... he got less mp's than kinnock. at least kinnock had the sense to resign and let someone else lead the party..... I just asked how you were measuring success, thanks for clarifying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted April 22, 2018 Share Posted April 22, 2018 Kinnock got 271 seats in 1992, Corbyn 262 in 2017. But Kinnock got 34.4% of the vote, Corbyn 40%. Major got 336 seats in 1992, May 317 in 2017 While Major got 41.9% of the vote to May's 42.4%. Both May (7.6 seats per 1% of the vote) and Corbyn (6.6) got fewer seats for each vote than Major (8.0) or Kinnock (7.9). Elections are won and lost on the concentration of a party's vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody2 Posted April 23, 2018 Share Posted April 23, 2018 11 hours ago, mojomonkey said: I just asked how you were measuring success, thanks for clarifying. how else would you assess it..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojomonkey Posted April 23, 2018 Share Posted April 23, 2018 20 minutes ago, woody2 said: how else would you assess it..... See chinahand"s post, more than one way to assess it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody2 Posted April 23, 2018 Share Posted April 23, 2018 1 minute ago, mojomonkey said: See chinahand"s post, more than one way to assess it. only one way that matters...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted May 24, 2018 Share Posted May 24, 2018 I've used Google News for goodness knows how long, I had set up my own sections giving me news on China, astronomy, climate change and had relegated the Sport and entertainment sections to the bottom of the page. And what have they gone and done ... re-jigged the page. Personalisation all a mess, banished to separate pages, sport and entertainment given higher priority and an absolutely horrible "For you" section where google spies on your browsing and gives AI guesses of what you want rather than letting you choose your own sections for yourself. Grrrrrr ... so and sos. Any other good news amalgamator sites out there? I'll be back to trying out Yahoo at this rate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted May 24, 2018 Share Posted May 24, 2018 Don't you just love it when people "improve" things that suited you very well just as they were? It's a feature of modern life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted May 24, 2018 Share Posted May 24, 2018 10 minutes ago, woolley said: Don't you just love it when people "improve" things that suited you very well just as they were? It's a feature of modern life. It's called "marketing" to give the product a kicker. Poor Mr C had narrowed his choices so much he was missing too much clickbait. So they "expanded" his choices to give him more opportunity to browse sponsor content. Kerrrching! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIchard Britten Posted May 25, 2018 Share Posted May 25, 2018 Morgan Freeman has been accused of sexual misconduct. Front main story of one of the red tops (Mirror I think)...."Morgan Sex Pest". So much for innocent until proven guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freggyragh Posted May 25, 2018 Share Posted May 25, 2018 The FT, The Economist, Herald, Belfast Telegraph and Boston Globe are the only English language news sources I read to find out what’s happening in the world. I sometimes look at the Telegraph, Wail, Express etc. - but only for a laugh. I like the guardian Sport pages, don’t bother with the rest, would buy the Independent if stuck in England with no WiFi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo Posted May 25, 2018 Share Posted May 25, 2018 Create a Twitter account and follow the news sources you want. Or just buy The Economist and the FT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted May 25, 2018 Share Posted May 25, 2018 22 minutes ago, Freggyragh said: would buy the Independent if stuck in England with no WiFi. I bet you wouldn't. Proof, if proof were needed, that some folks on here need to read a decent paper... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody2 Posted May 25, 2018 Share Posted May 25, 2018 50 minutes ago, P.K. said: Proof, if proof were needed, that some folks on here need to read a decent paper... you for one..... you should try the sport- its got less tits in it than the junk you read...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIchard Britten Posted May 25, 2018 Share Posted May 25, 2018 Isnt it sweet that FOX "News" is the official State News Station of America.... Amazing how many "Exclusive Trump" interviews they get... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.