knowone

I agree with everything you say here. I'm well aware it's long been a thing to scapegoat minorities of course, for centuries and centuries. The media isn't the primary cause, but it's the main thing that is driving us towards fascist ideas being legitimised, as I see it. Without them doing that we wouldn't be in nearly as bad a situation as we are today. We can't get to sorting out the ills as anyone who genuinely wants to is demonised and delegitimised

I can't remember exactly where I saw it and when but I remember in the last couple months seeing a poll where how important different issues and topics were to voters from each party were shown. Reform voters were very high on things like healthcare, affordability, nationalisation of industries and so on. Even more so than any other party besides the Greens, I think

Obviously immigration came out top for the Reform voters, but the poll as a whole says what leftists have been saying for so long now. Some will be voting for Reform from just a racist perspective, of course, but most will be doing it because they've been tricked into thinking that the reason they can't have those things that they really want is because of immigration. Especially in all the many poor, struggling areas Reform are doing best in

Our media has cooked so many people's thinking. And our electoral system is going to force us to have a strong chance of a fascist government when the majority don't want it

I don't see this as upholding free speech. It's being painted in the media so far that this is simply about single sex toilets and "making women feel safe". Notice how they never say "cis women". Their choice of words speaks for itself. Should councillors have to listen to overt fascists give their views too? Seeing as they don't "feel safe" around non white people? We know full well these people wouldn't stop at single sex toilets, they just go on about that more than anything cos it's the only thing they can twist into making themselves seem the victim. They'd happily take free speech away from trans people. Underneath, most of them are similar to Graham Linehan

They wouldn't do this when the better option for them is to make Mamdani's ambitions for New York as hard as possible to bring to fruition. Even if they only hinder him a bit, any inability at all from Mamdani to do every single thing he wants to do (and things they claim he wants to do) will see relentless coverage in the right wing media (and likely also some from liberal media) in order to paint it as a "failed project" and how "unrealistic socialism is." That serves them far better than just disappearing the guy

I see your point about how they will try and make Mamdani look as bad as possible in the meeting but he could withstand it far better than Zelenskyy, I reckon. Nothing wrong with Zelenskyy on that front, just it's obvious Mamdani would do better

Next week: "Shabana Mahmood is the new Labour leader"

Obviously shouldn't count on this being the actual result. But this is more than a bit worrying

Linux Mint

As the article says, it's yet another of many reviews over the years that has shown that racism, and other forms of bigotry, are systemic in the Met. Which have been basically ignored every time. I'm sure in this time of increased general bigotry in the UK something will absolutely be done, after this one

I'm glad in the article they say that Khan is part of the centrist Labour establishment. For any US people that aren't aware, Mamdani's win is a way bigger jump to the left for New York than Khan was/is for London, even though Johnson came before him. I wish Khan was like Mamdani in this aspect, London could really use someone like that too

Also decarb them and you've got nature's gabapentin

I want them to get it together, but mostly cos there's certain seats that Your Party will win or have a good chance of winning that the Greens won't. We need a united front but so far it's not looking great. Really needs to happen in good time before next year's local elections

Thank you for linking this. I've looked at every instance of "transport" in the document and it's almost all about maintaining and renewing current infrastructure. Which is good, of course, but nowhere does it seem to talk about affordability. In the part where it talks about how they're going to decarbonise the UK in regards to transport, again it just seems to talk about pushing for electric cars.

Correct me if I'm wrong and have missed things though. I'd be pleased to see that they're actually going to make public transport affordable. It's good to make what's there better and expand it. But if most people still aren't able to use it and having a car is cheaper, it's not going to have nearly the outcome it should