News Now Yorkshire

When Andy Burnham won in Makerfield, he said in his victory speech: "the best thing that we can say about last night is that there was a risk, if you like, that we would carry on seeing Britain and the politics of our country go down a path towards greater darkness and division and ending up somewhere like the United States of America where people don't talk to each other in the street if they vote different ways, or in their work place. We will not let that happen here." It was clear that he was referring to the fact that he had defeated Reform / Restore. How odd that he would simultaneously suggest that people who voted for them were trying to lead Britain down a path of "darkness and division", yet that he also does not want to end up in a place where people do not speak to each other due to political differences. News flash, we arrived at this place long ago in Britain, and Labour have been pretty good at maintaining this environment. For example, Josh Simons, who stood down in order for Burnham to run, had to leave his government role after it was revealed that he had commissioned a report which spread false and misleading information about journalists who had dared to criticise Labour Together and Keir Starmer. Perhaps it is the case that people who vote for Reform and Restore have very legitimate concerns about immigration based on the reality of what they have seen Britain become. And they have been able to know about this reality, in no small part, due to @elonmusk's X, along side what they see in their every day lives. We would not know, for example, that a man was arrested on Saturday in Leeds after he insulted Muhammad, had it not been for independent content creator @NewsNowYorks filming and sharing the footage. We would not know the reality of the alleged attempted beheading in Belfast by a Sudanese migrant had it not been for a member of the public filming and sharing it. The public would not know about the extent of the rape gangs had it not been for the free discussion on X. No where near as many people would have known about the murder of Henry Nowak and the behaviour of the police had it not been for independent news sources sharing the video widely. Now, the government is proposing that social media sites should be obliged to promote “prominence for trustworthy news” (i.e state funded and regulated) in order to suppress "divisive narratives” that emerge from a "growing range of independent commentators". Lucy Powell, the same person who called the rape gangs a "dog whistle", thinks that X is "toxic" and that social media should be regulated during general elections. It's as though they think we have no idea what they mean when they say "darkness and division", "divisive narratives", or that X "isn't healthy for our democracy". They are not just referring to you expressing your concerns about multicultural Britain and daring to want to vote for a right wing party - they don't even want you to be able to know about the reality of multicultural Britain in case it risks you wanting to express such concerns in the first place. That is why they told you not to share the video of the Sudanese migrant allegedly trying to behead a man in Belfast. They will tell you these proposals are not about suppressing freedom of speech. You know, just like when Steve Reed said the Anti Muslim Hostility definition was not about suppressing freedom of speech or criticism of Islam or Islamic practices, but then went on to call @NJ_Timothy "racist" and demand that he apologise for his comments about Islam and Islamic practices, and the Prime Minister to call on Kemi Badenoch to sack him. They think we are mugs and are not ashamed to be brazen about it. They have made clear that they want to control what content we consume so we are unaware of reality, and thus have no reason to want to vote for right wing parties. And they are genuinely hoping we will believe them when they say they are wanting to do this to improve democracy.