snowychap Posted September 3, 2016 Share Posted September 3, 2016 10 minutes ago, dAVe80 said: draw a crowd Crowds don't win (parliamentary) elections, though, Dave. See South Thanet for an example. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dAVe80 Posted September 3, 2016 Share Posted September 3, 2016 1 minute ago, snowychap said: Crowds don't win (parliamentary) elections, though, Dave. See South Thanet for an example. No the people who attend the speeches, and join the party, and campaign on the party's behalf do though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted September 3, 2016 Share Posted September 3, 2016 Just now, dAVe80 said: No the people who attend the speeches, and join the party, and campaign on the party's behalf do though. They don't. They aren't sufficient numbers (or concentrated in the right areas) to do that. If they can mobilize others then they may but in and of themselves they don't. That's not a reason not to have people gather like that or discuss things or listen to speeches, btw. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dAVe80 Posted September 3, 2016 Share Posted September 3, 2016 1 minute ago, snowychap said: They don't. They aren't sufficient numbers (or concentrated in the right areas) to do that. If they can mobilize others then they may but in and of themselves they don't. That's not a reason not to have people gather like that or discuss things or listen to speeches, btw. Sorry I disagree. Of course people campaigning win elections. I'm not saying they're the only reason, but they play a huge part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted September 3, 2016 Share Posted September 3, 2016 I'm quite heartened by the way that even though the media and neoliberal establishment seem to be getting more and more scared and desperate every day, it seems that Corbyn only gains popularity within his party and possibly in the general public. I foresee that if he wins the leadership election with the predicted landslide then that will give the majority of the public who generally just parrot the last thing they heard some reassurance that actually he may not be some wacko nutjob to be pilloried like the daily mail says, and actually quite a few people take him seriously. Once that happens the momentum (for lack of a better term) will be hard to stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted September 3, 2016 Share Posted September 3, 2016 1 minute ago, dAVe80 said: Sorry I disagree. Of course people campaigning win elections. I'm not saying they're the only reason, but they play a huge part. Yes and no (see the Lib Dems for how much the influence of grass roots campaigners can wane) but that doesn't really relate to the crowds. They are not all campaigners. Turning up in a crowd to listen to someone doesn't make a person a political campaigner. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted September 3, 2016 Share Posted September 3, 2016 3 minutes ago, snowychap said: They don't. They aren't sufficient numbers (or concentrated in the right areas) to do that. If they can mobilize others then they may but in and of themselves they don't. That's not a reason not to have people gather like that or discuss things or listen to speeches, btw. I know Farage didn't win Thanet. But the media tried their best to give him as much airtime and column inches as possible. He came within 1,800 votes of taking Thanet from the tories, and that's with him being a slimey snake oil fascist city boy, that apparently draws his support largely from old Labour. Imagine what could be achieved with Corbyn if he got the jolly media bandwagon ride that Farage got. Plaster the newspapers with his agenda, with his face, with selective articles about big crowds and popular appeal. I know that's not going to happen. But that's not a good enough reason to only pick candidates that Murdcock approves of. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted September 3, 2016 Share Posted September 3, 2016 (edited) 10 minutes ago, chrisp65 said: I know Farage didn't win Thanet. But the media tried their best to give him as much airtime and column inches as possible. He came within 1,800 votes of taking Thanet from the tories, and that's with him being a slimey snake oil fascist city boy, that apparently draws his support largely from old Labour. Imagine what could be achieved with Corbyn if he got the jolly media bandwagon ride that Farage got. Plaster the newspapers with his agenda, with his face, with selective articles about big crowds and popular appeal. I know that's not going to happen. But that's not a good enough reason to only pick candidates that Murdcock approves of. I'm not sure what on earth that has to do with my post, Chris. No idea what the Murdoch stuff has to do with anything I've ever posted - unless he also didn't like your Jam selection. My point was that crowds, i.e. a few thousand (or even a million or more in the case of the anti-Iraq march) don't win you elections - they don't even win you things, though they might move the overton window such that one could win things in future. A group of several thousand in Kent (which amounts to what proportion of the actual voting proportion of the electorate) out listening to Corbyn may well indicate a large amount of support for him but it does not necessarily indicate a mobilizable level of support (even in that individual constituency) for any election triumph in the near future. Edited September 3, 2016 by snowychap 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dAVe80 Posted September 3, 2016 Share Posted September 3, 2016 Just now, snowychap said: Yes and no (see the Lib Dems for how much the influence of grass roots campaigners can wane) but that doesn't really relate to the crowds. They are not all campaigners. Turning up in a crowd to listen to someone doesn't make a person a political campaigner. Labour have approx 600k members, and are the just about the biggest party in Europe now. If they can utilise just a small percentage of that membership to campaign, then they're going to be in a position of having more active campaigners that any other party. That plays a big part in winning elections. Corbyn doesn't play the game with the media (for many reasons, both to do with him and the media its self), and that may or may not impact on his chances of winning an election, yet his message is still getting out there. People are still flocking to him. People are inspired by him, and want to spread their support for him. I've never seen or experienced a grass roots movement like this in my life. People are getting together and talking about politics, some for the first time in their lives. They're doing it because of Corbyn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted September 3, 2016 Share Posted September 3, 2016 15 minutes ago, snowychap said: I'm not sure what on earth that has to do with my post, Chris. No idea what the Murdoch stuff has to do with anything I've ever posted - unless he also didn't like your Jam selection. My point was that crowds, i.e. a few thousand (or even a million or more in the case of the anti-Iraq march) don't win you elections - they don't even win you things, though they might move the overton window such that one could win things in future. A group of several thousand in Kent (which amounts to what proportion of the actual voting proportion of the electorate) out listening to Corbyn may well indicate a large amount of support for him but it does not necessarily indicate a mobilizable level of support (even in that individual constituency) for any election triumph in the near future. It was a simple idea, a crowd around Farage was always portrayed as Mr Popular's march to victory. Unfortunately, many of the electorate appear to pay little heed to facts and figures. When they are told by Sky News and The Daily Mail and The Sun and Talk Radio that there is a groundswell behind 'x', for some inexplicable reason, they join the gang. Most couldn't even tell you what the gang stands for. 'Sticking it to the man' declares the 1st Lord Viscount Rothermere, via his newspaper, and the people swallow it. The crowds around Farage were used by the media to threaten and manoeuvre tory PM and he fell for it. The crowds around Corbyn are either not reported or dismissed as the secret flank of the Socialist Workers Party. Crowds of observers at a rally don't win elections. How the establishment choose to report crowds, does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted September 3, 2016 Share Posted September 3, 2016 (edited) 26 minutes ago, dAVe80 said: Labour have approx 600k members, and are the just about the biggest party in Europe now. If they can utilise just a small percentage of that membership to campaign, then they're going to be in a position of having more active campaigners that any other party. That plays a big part in winning elections. Corbyn doesn't play the game with the media (for many reasons, both to do with him and the media its self), and that may or may not impact on his chances of winning an election, yet his message is still getting out there. People are still flocking to him. People are inspired by him, and want to spread their support for him. I've never seen or experienced a grass roots movement like this in my life. People are getting together and talking about politics, some for the first time in their lives. They're doing it because of Corbyn. The electorate is not politicized. A small percentage of it is which is why the Labour party with approx 600k members could lay claim to being the biggest party in Europe right now (I obviously haven't fact checked that but I know you (from posting on here!) and therefore trust you on your figures). I'm not criticizing people supporting Corbyn or him and his politics (at least not in this post) but the idea that a few thousand people turning out to hear him talk in Kent or the Labour party increasing their membership is going to change the nature of UK electoral politics in the short term is fanciful at best. Again, that's not a reason to stop doing it. Edited September 3, 2016 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted September 3, 2016 Share Posted September 3, 2016 8 minutes ago, chrisp65 said: How the establishment choose to report crowds, does. I don't think that's true. The Sun didn't win it - they just claimed they did. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dAVe80 Posted September 3, 2016 Share Posted September 3, 2016 (edited) 12 minutes ago, snowychap said: The electorate is not politicized. A small percentage of it is which is why the Labour party with approx 600k members could lay claim to being the biggest party in Europe right now (I obviously haven't fact checked that but I know and therefore trust you on your figures). I'm not criticizing people supporting Corbyn or him and his politics (at least not in this post) but the idea that a few thousand people turning out to hear him talk in Kent or the Labour party increasing their membership is going to change the nature of UK electoral politics in the short term is fanciful at best. Again, that's not a reason to stop doing it. Although I understand what you're saying, I think the original point has been missed. If the PLP could get its act together, and it didn't shoot its self in the foot after Brexit, then they could have built on the lead they had in the polls, before they decided to seize the opportunity to try and oust Corbyn (which some had been waiting for from the minute he was voted in as leader). With a PLP and its membership pulling in the same direction, and a leader that can rouse as much support as he does, then you've got an electable party. Edited September 3, 2016 by dAVe80 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted September 3, 2016 Share Posted September 3, 2016 6 minutes ago, dAVe80 said: Although I understand what you're saying, I think the original point has been missed. If the PLP could get its act together, and it didn't shoot its self in the foot after Brexit, then they could have built on the lead they had in the polls, before they decided to seize the opportunity to try and oust Corbyn (which some had been waiting for from the minute he was voted in as leader). With a PLP and its membership pulling in the same direction, and a leader that can rouse as much support as he does, then you've got an electable party. Perhaps but I still think the 'rouse as much support' bit is a red herring. If the (parliamentary) Labour party were more united then we'd surely have a better opposition at least. The Labour party isn't united, though. It's not about getting an act together (I think every part of the Labour party could be accused of failing there), there are plenty of 'acts' together, they just aren't taking the stage in order to perform the same play. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted September 4, 2016 Share Posted September 4, 2016 10 hours ago, Jon said: Condescending bullshit. Thanks for that. You're welcome, I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted September 4, 2016 VT Supporter Share Posted September 4, 2016 I like a lot of what Corbyn says. I also think he strays too far occasionally, and of course he's entirely unelectable, his job mostly being to lurch Labour left IMO. But I'm struggling to work out why he thinks the South East needs £30bn investment. It's the region that probably least needs that kind of money. I'm sure he's committed to investment similarly elsewhere, but that doesn't take away from the fact South East just doesn't need investment like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_c Posted September 4, 2016 Share Posted September 4, 2016 23 minutes ago, Chindie said: But I'm struggling to work out why he thinks the South East needs £30bn investment. I'm guessing, influenced like all politicians, it's because: a) he lives there. his constituency is there. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted September 4, 2016 Share Posted September 4, 2016 Mayfair or Chelsea might not need investment, I'd say chunks of south and east London do. Similarly, I wouldn't worry too much about Royal Tunbridge Wells, but the Isle of Sheppey has some very real deprivation. Hastings, Rochester, Sittingbourne...shit holes for the majority of the population, with a ring of millionaire commuter homes on the outskirts. Investment in the south east appears to be largely about getting commuters in to the centre of London, getting northerners in to the centre, getting all of us on to planes at Heathrow....that's not really helping the housing estates of Chatham Docks. Google Earth Sheppey and look at all those caravan parks. They aren't just holiday homes, some of them are occupied all year. You could build a quarter of a million houses along the M2 and still have a housing shortage. That doesn't mean other places elsewhere aren't equally deserving. But it's very easy to fall through the gaps, if you live in the wrong South East post code. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted September 4, 2016 Share Posted September 4, 2016 I still don't understand what unelectable means. I'd never heard it used before it started showing up in Tory newspapers and people started repeating it. Can anyone describe how it relates to Corbyn, taking out all of false stuff and misrepresentations by the media and coup attempt, obviously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted September 4, 2016 VT Supporter Share Posted September 4, 2016 21 minutes ago, darrenm said: I still don't understand what unelectable means. I'd never heard it used before it started showing up in Tory newspapers and people started repeating it. Can anyone describe how it relates to Corbyn, taking out all of false stuff and misrepresentations by the media and coup attempt, obviously. He won't appeal to enough people to win an election. I say that as someone who likes him and wouldn't consider myself near Tory or related media supporter. Everything about him (his policies, his more general positions, his manner, his look) doesn't sell to enough voters to win an election sadly, which stacks much of the rest of the deck against him - an awful lot of media sources happy to bin him wouldn't be so keen if they felt their readership might vote for him and they would print the good stories and downplay the bad. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts