The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[peterms]

40 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

506 words. I'd save your time and your energy. Literally nobody is going to care about this non-event in 48 hours time. 

Yes.  But before discussion moves on, it's important to try to establish what did and didn't happen.

Like the one about the brick through the window of Eagle's constituency office (implication that it was political opponents, ie Corbyn fans) which turned out to be not through her window at all, just a stairwell in a communal building.

If unchallenged, these things enter the public consciousness as truth, and are then rolled out in future as fact.  The Smith camp are doing it now, and the Blairites have been doing it for decades.  So if what appears in the media seems incorrect, it's worth saying so, even if attention quickly passes on to something else.

[darrenm]

Exactly this. It doesn't matter that it's untrue, as long as it's unchallenged, people will remember it as the truth.

[blandy]

3 hours ago, peterms said:

there's no accounts from other passengers disputing that this was the case.

There are. On the Radio. LBC James O'Brien's programme. Fellow traveller(s) called in to say there were loads of free seats.

 

1 hour ago, peterms said:

Yes.  But before discussion moves on, it's important to try to establish what did and didn't happen.

Like the one about the brick through the window of Eagle's constituency office (implication that it was political opponents, ie Corbyn fans) which turned out to be not through her window at all, just a stairwell in a communal building.

If unchallenged, these things enter the public consciousness as truth, and are then rolled out in future as fact.

Like when JC denied he'd said "we should trigger article 50 now" (i.e. straight after the result) and then was shown saying exactly that on the BBC?

The notion (not that you're saying it) elsewhere that JC is somehow above the deception, spin and down and dirty aspect of bollitics is utter tosh, as is exactly the case for the rest of the politicians. They're all at it. It isn't the case that he is uniquely suffering from people making stuff up - he is, as with others, from time to time exposed as two faced. From his own MPs and the tacit him looking the other way as some of them are bullied by his supporters, to half arsed attitudes to anti-semitism, Corbyn and Momentum are as bad as everyone else, and in some cases worse.

[djdabush]

1 hour ago, peterms said:

Yes.  But before discussion moves on, it's important to try to establish what did and didn't happen.

Like the one about the brick through the window of Eagle's constituency office (implication that it was political opponents, ie Corbyn fans) which turned out to be not through her window at all, just a stairwell in a communal building.

If unchallenged, these things enter the public consciousness as truth, and are then rolled out in future as fact.  The Smith camp are doing it now, and the Blairites have been doing it for decades.  So if what appears in the media seems incorrect, it's worth saying so, even if attention quickly passes on to something else.

The Smith camp? It was Corbyn who span the whole thing in the first place. If it hadn't been called out by Virgin Trains then it would have entered the public consciousness that the train was absolutely ram packed which meant Corbyn had no other choice but to sit in the vestibule ready to roll out in the future as fact.

[Davkaus]

He properly lost his rag in a press conference today when questioned about it

[blandy]

13 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

He properly lost his rag in a press conference today when questioned about it

He was certainly irritated. I can kind of understand why. He set up a press thing to talk about NHS and all he got was questions about trains, thus the message on the NHS (which is much more important) gets lost amongst the trivia.

He's in the situation where 1. he set himself up as "different"  - nicer, kinder, gentler, and all that, and so any opportunity where he is found to be not quite nicer and gentler is a beacon for the media. Particularly one which is not on his side.

2. He has a fairly rabid and sizeable bunch of supporters who seem to love him. But the rest of the country, doesn't. They think he's a numpty. So he's got all these voices turning up to hear him speak and twittering and momentuming and all that - many of them don't seem to have a balanced view - anything against Corbyn, however constructive, or fair, is just "MSM" or "Bliar supporting tories" etc. Rabid.

3. He doesn't have a competent team around him to advise.

4. He hasn't got a clue how to change things round. There's a saying that whoever you vote for, the government always gets in. He doesn't know how to "be the government" and won't get in. He doesn't seem to mind that.

Labour is not a credible or capable opposition that's so desperately needed. tories have a small majority, have just done a massive eff-up, have made the debt worse, and are a mess, but it doesn't matter because Jeremy and his chums and Owen nomark and his chums are all squabbling over who is legitimate - they're all a bunch of illegitimates IMO.

[peterms]

36 minutes ago, djdabush said:

The Smith camp? It was Corbyn who span the whole thing in the first place. If it hadn't been called out by Virgin Trains then it would have entered the public consciousness that the train was absolutely ram packed which meant Corbyn had no other choice but to sit in the vestibule ready to roll out in the future as fact.

What the Smith camp have been doing is running a very co-ordinated dirty tricks campaign.  The carefully timed series of resignations, calculated to do maximum damage.  The orchestrated smears about supposed antisemitism, not giving women prominent enough roles, and now something about not doing enough for black issues in the party (this about someone who prominently defended black sections in the party when the right wing were trying to sideline them).

I've seen their games from the inside, and I recognise them.

The current spat is opportunistic, not planned, but is being stoked for all it is worth by careful briefings, orchestrated social media, and telling selected MPs and supporters what to say, when, and how.

On the train issue, Corbyn is right.  Branson is a parasite who profits from people's misery on a monopolistic service which must be nationalised.  If Smith, or his temporary backers (who are already plotting his replacement) had any thought or care for the great British public, they would get behind that message.

[dAVe80]

 

[peterms]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

There are. On the Radio. LBC James O'Brien's programme. Fellow traveller(s) called in to say there were loads of free seats.

 

Like when JC denied he'd said "we should trigger article 50 now" (i.e. straight after the result) and then was shown saying exactly that on the BBC?

The notion (not that you're saying it) elsewhere that JC is somehow above the deception, spin and down and dirty aspect of bollitics is utter tosh, as is exactly the case for the rest of the politicians. They're all at it. It isn't the case that he is uniquely suffering from people making stuff up - he is, as with others, from time to time exposed as two faced. From his own MPs and the tacit him looking the other way as some of them are bullied by his supporters, to half arsed attitudes to anti-semitism, Corbyn and Momentum are as bad as everyone else, and in some cases worse.

Fellow travellers, eh?  There's a good joke going begging there.

I didn't see any denial of the S50 thing - do you have a link or anything that would help me find it?

No, I'm not saying Corbyn is above any dirty tricks.  I can assure you that I've been the subject of a couple from some of the people who support him, long time back.  But he does in my view have more integrity than the pathetic placemen and puppets who seek to replace him, so they can crawl a little further up the dungheap of personal enrichment which Blair and Mandelson made respectable, at least in one dismal and sordid corner of the Labour Party.

And it is because integrity is a distinguishing characteristic, that the agenda of the right sing and the media is to undermine that perception.

That's why it's about so much more than a train seat.

[sharkyvilla]

If you're going to caught out for lying, at least make it a proper big whopper rather than some silly shite about train seats.  It is stupid little things like this that often amount up to doing a lot of damage, and he wouldn't have endeared himself to people by his reaction today either.

[peterms]

11 minutes ago, sharkyvilla said:

If you're going to caught out for lying, at least make it a proper big whopper rather than some silly shite about train seats.  It is stupid little things like this that often amount up to doing a lot of damage, and he wouldn't have endeared himself to people by his reaction today either.

That's pretty much a perfect demonstration of my point about what this managed media campaign is about.  Create an impression that someone has lied, don't worry that people will follow the story through to establish the facts, because they mostly won't, bad karma for the object of the campaign, job done!  Doubles all round!

[chrisp65]

Yep, I was in an office today and a conversation was struck up and all anybody 'knew' was that yesterday Corbyn had been caught lying about something about trains and today 'they' got him by asking him loads of questions he didn't like that got him riled up.

Welcome to the post factual infotainment news society, where the news is 30 seconds long, has to include a celebrity article and has a musak beat playing behind it.

[chrisp65]

2 hours ago, peterms said:

I've seen their games from the inside, and I recognise them.

Way back in the day I was a hanger on around some SWP / Militant types. Back when John Smith was trying to be our MP (not that one, the lesser one), back in the late 80's.

It was fascinating to see the games, the plots, the blatant contradictory promises to various people and groups, the gossip and rumour. That was just the internal Labour stuff, nevermind briefing against the sitting tory scum MP. He was horrible, but the stories told about him were outrageous.

More recently I've witnessed the opposite of 'militant' active within Labour, the promotion of filled suits, content to read from a script and tweet what they are told to tweet.

It would take a sea change for me to vote Labour. I really need 'none of the above' added to the ballot. 

[peterms]

10 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Way back in the day I was a hanger on around some SWP / Militant types. Back when John Smith was trying to be our MP (not that one, the lesser one), back in the late 80's.

It was fascinating to see the games, the plots, the blatant contradictory promises to various people and groups, the gossip and rumour. That was just the internal Labour stuff, nevermind briefing against the sitting tory scum MP. He was horrible, but the stories told about him were outrageous.

More recently I've witnessed the opposite of 'militant' active within Labour, the promotion of filled suits, content to read from a script and tweet what they are told to tweet.

It would take a sea change for me to vote Labour. I really need 'none of the above' added to the ballot. 

Hah, we should meet up for a beer and a chat!  We might even know some peeps in common...

I've gone Green, not rsgretted it yet.

 

[chrisp65]

yeah, I've had a dabble with Plaid as the best of a bad lot, but I'm uncomfortable with the inevitable ugly side of nationalism

[NurembergVillan]

18 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Way back in the day I was a hanger on around SWP

[MakemineVanilla]

12 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

yeah, I've had a dabble with Plaid as the best of a bad lot, but I'm uncomfortable with the inevitable ugly side of nationalism

I never took you for a Bay City Rollers fan!

[blandy]

9 hours ago, peterms said:

Fellow travellers, eh?  There's a good joke going begging there.

I didn't see any denial of the S50 thing - do you have a link or anything that would help me find it?

No, I'm not saying Corbyn is above any dirty tricks.  I can assure you that I've been the subject of a couple from some of the people who support him, long time back.  But he does in my view have more integrity than the pathetic placemen and puppets who seek to replace him, so they can crawl a little further up the dungheap of personal enrichment which Blair and Mandelson made respectable, at least in one dismal and sordid corner of the Labour Party.

And it is because integrity is a distinguishing characteristic, that the agenda of the right sing and the media is to undermine that perception.

That's why it's about so much more than a train seat.

On article 50, take your pick   I'm on the iPad so linking and quotes is harder but here's one

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-uk-leaves-the-eu-36866170

Quote

Reality Check verdict: Mr Corbyn's message has certainly changed, either because he has changed his mind or because he misspoke on 24 June and waited a month to correct himself.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn spoke to David Dimbleby on the BBC the morning of the EU Referendum result.

His first remark was that: "The British people have made their decision. We must respect that result and Article 50 has to be invoked now so that we negotiate an exit from the European Union."

Article 50 is the mechanism by which countries leave the European Union. After it has been triggered, the clock starts ticking on a two-year deadline to negotiate the terms of the exit, after which the country will leave the EU, unless all the other members agree to an extension.

Mr Dimbleby said the idea of an abrupt signing of Article 50 was at odds with suggestions from Tory MEP Daniel Hannan who said it would be better to take our time and develop a strategy.

My Corbyn confirmed that it was important to have a strategy but did not disagree with the suggestion that he was calling for an abrupt triggering of Article 50.

Media coverage concluded that Mr Corbyn was indeed in favour of triggering Article 50 straightaway, and his first challenger for the Labour leadership, Angela Eagle, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that his idea of triggering Article 50 straightaway would have caused chaos.

An immediate triggering of Article 50 was not an outlandish suggestion at the time. David Cameron had said before the referendum that he would be doing so straightaway, before changing his mind and resigning instead.

---

Thing is if you can see or find actual audio or video it's as clear as day what he said, the tone and meaning. Later details are like Owen Smith saying he didn't call carbon. Lunatic when he was shown to have done. Exactly that on tape. Nobbers.

[chrisp65]

[peterms]

10 hours ago, blandy said:

On article 50, take your pick   I'm on the iPad so linking and quotes is harder but here's one

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-uk-leaves-the-eu-36866170

Thing is if you can see or find actual audio or video it's as clear as day what he said, the tone and meaning. Later details are like Owen Smith saying he didn't call carbon. Lunatic when he was shown to have done. Exactly that on tape. Nobbers.

There are three further paras at fhe end of that BBC piece you quoted, which make it clear that he is seeking to explain his meaning, not lie about the words he used.

The wpd "now" has been seized on as meaning "immediately", despite his clarification.  In fact the division of opinion is about whether article 50 should be invoked at all.   Immediately after the vote, some people started looking for ways of ignoring or disregarding the referendum result - Smith is still doing so.  Corbyn's view seems to be that we should accept the decision.

Yes, he said in a live interview that we should invoke article 50 now.  When asked to clarify whether he meant immediately, he explained he did not.  I suggest it's unreasonable to interpret this as a lie.

Here are the three paras from that same article:

Quote

But Mr Corbyn set the record straight in an interview on Newsnight on Thursday.

"I may not have put that as well as I should have done," he told presenter Evan Davis.

"The view I was putting was that Article 50 will be invoked at some point. I did not mean it should be invoked on Friday morning and we should rush over to Brussels and start negotiating things away because clearly the negotiations are going to be very long and very complicated.