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

[HanoiVillan]

1 hour ago, Mantis said:

Winning a Labour leadership contest is very different from winning a general election.

True, but the problem for Corbyn's internal opponents is that their whole argument is 'electable electable electable' - Owen Smith specifically suggested doing little different ideologically from Corbyn - but the proposition that they are much more electable than Corbyn does look a bit silly when they keep losing to him in competitive elections. 

[markavfc40]

8 hours ago, Dr_Pangloss said:

He has not been able to make an effective case for his policies (some of which I agree with) to the wider electorate and he systematically fails to take down the Tory govt. at PMQ's, instead for a long time choosing his stupid gimmick of asking questions which are 'apparently' emailed in to him. 

He is also exceptionally bad at playing politics, and like it or not this is very important.

In fairness PMQ's is a joke and a pantomime at best. Corbyn has tried to make it into the serious exchange that it should be. To succeed in that though it needs two to tango and the person opposite, be it Cameron and now May, have failed to engage him. Should he stoop to their level or should he persist in what he is doing? He has chosen to persist in what he is doing and rightly so. He asks very serious questions that have been sent to him by individuals that have both the personal tone and express the impact on individuals and that then feed into wider issues. 

As for him being bad at playing politics and seeing that has a bad thing. I mean really mate you think that is a bad thing? surely we all want an end to this playing politics bollocks. I think it is fantastic we have a leader of a major party that goes completely against the grain and refuses to bow to pressure from his own MP's, and outside, to conform to what we have been brainwashed into thinking a politician should be and the style over substance crap due to the need to pander to the main stream media.

Edited September 25, 2016 by markavfc40

[Mantis]

28 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

True, but the problem for Corbyn's internal opponents is that their whole argument is 'electable electable electable' - Owen Smith specifically suggested doing little different ideologically from Corbyn - but the proposition that they are much more electable than Corbyn does look a bit silly when they keep losing to him in competitive elections. 

Not really. The Labour electorate and the national electorate are too radically different sets of voters. Even Labour voters are much less left-wing than the members, hence the rise of UKIP in many traditionally Labour areas.

Smith was pretty poor though. As you said, he didn't really differ much from Corbyn policy-wise. Why vote for Corbyn-lite when the Labour members could have the real Corbyn?

Edited September 25, 2016 by Mantis

[HanoiVillan]

54 minutes ago, Mantis said:

Not really. The Labour electorate and the national electorate are too radically different sets of voters. Even Labour voters are much less left-wing than the members, hence the rise of UKIP in many traditionally Labour areas.

Smith was pretty poor though. As you said, he didn't really differ much from Corbyn policy-wise. Why vote for Corbyn-lite when the Labour members could have the real Corbyn?

On your first paragraph - there's no massive appetite for centre-leftism in the country at large either. It isn't, in fact, massively obvious that the country would be a lot keener on Burnham / Cooper etc than they are on Corbyn. The decline of the centre left is a secular trend observable all around the continent. Not that this means Corbyn shouldn't be doing better, because he should. I want a competent Labour leadership. I don't think Corbyn is going to provide it. Problem is I don't see many others providing it either. 

Your second paragraph is spot on though. There's no reason to vote for the fake when you can vote for the original, full-strength version. Labour MPs currently suggesting the party should support leaving the single market as a precondition to ending freedom of movement would do well to remember that. I don't really foresee the racists and anti-immigrants falling all over themselves to give Chuka Umunna the credit he wants for throwing his 'principles' under the bus. 

[Mantis]

13 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

On your first paragraph - there's no massive appetite for centre-leftism in the country at large either. It isn't, in fact, massively obvious that the country would be a lot keener on Burnham / Cooper etc than they are on Corbyn. The decline of the centre left is a secular trend observable all around the continent. Not that this means Corbyn shouldn't be doing better, because he should. I want a competent Labour leadership. I don't think Corbyn is going to provide it. Problem is I don't see many others providing it either. 

Your second paragraph is spot on though. There's no reason to vote for the fake when you can vote for the original, full-strength version. Labour MPs currently suggesting the party should support leaving the single market as a precondition to ending freedom of movement would do well to remember that. I don't really foresee the racists and anti-immigrants falling all over themselves to give Chuka Umunna the credit he wants for throwing his 'principles' under the bus. 

I do agree to an extent about there being no appetite for the centre-left, but I think that's mostly only because the centre-left hasn't yet redefined itself. That said, I expect people like Cooper and Burnham would still do better in an election than Corbyn.

Who do you mean by the racists and anti-immigrants exactly? UKIP voters? Because although UKIP as a party are definitely xenophobic I think a lot of their voters aren't.

[HanoiVillan]

1 hour ago, markavfc40 said:

In fairness PMQ's is a joke and a pantomime at best. Corbyn has tried to make it into the serious exchange that it should be. To succeed in that though it needs to two to tango and the person opposite, be it Cameron and now May, have failed to engage him. Should he stoop to their level or should he persist in what he is doing? He has chosen to persist in what he is doing and rightly so. He asks very serious questions that have been sent to him by individuals that have both the personal tone and express the impact on individuals and that then feed into wider issues. 

But he persistently fails to ask questions on the actual issues dominating the news agenda. He did - for once! - on grammar schools, and made May look stupid and did, to the maximum of his capacity, hold the government to account. He needs to do it more often. Minor issues are better dealt with in select committee. 

[OutByEaster?]

41 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

On your first paragraph - there's no massive appetite for centre-leftism in the country at large either. It isn't, in fact, massively obvious that the country would be a lot keener on Burnham / Cooper etc than they are on Corbyn. The decline of the centre left is a secular trend observable all around the continent.

I believe the opposite to be true - there's a groundswell of growth of leftist feeling and leftist parties in Britain and across the continent - I believe there's a huge appetite from the public to start to claw back some semblance of sanity from a corporate and banking structure that is both totalitarian and harmful to most of us - there's a media trying to persuade people otherwise - it's like a volcano with a crusty mantle of Daily Express. 

Now there's also a growth of far right feeling across the continent (and here) but even then I think we're dealing with the same anger as that which is boosting the left - just pushed in a different direction by that self same media. 

What there definitely is, is an evacuation of the centre. No one wants more of the same, not the left, not the right, not people anywhere -only banks, corporations, the media and the MP's that are in power. 

 

[HanoiVillan]

30 minutes ago, Mantis said:

I do agree to an extent about there being no appetite for the centre-left, but I think that's mostly only because the centre-left hasn't yet redefined itself. That said, I expect people like Cooper and Burnham would still do better in an election than Corbyn.

Who do you mean by the racists and anti-immigrants exactly? UKIP voters? Because although UKIP as a party are definitely xenophobic I think a lot of their voters aren't.

We've spent all year being told that opposing immigration is the single main reason for people voting for Brexit. Supposedly there are a lot of people out there who are primarily motivated in their voting behaviour by being anti-immigration. 

[Mantis]

1 minute ago, HanoiVillan said:

We've spent all year being told that opposing immigration is the single main reason for people voting for Brexit. Supposedly there are a lot of people out there who are primarily motivated in their voting behaviour by being anti-immigration. 

Immigration wasn't nearly as important as some make out. Yeah it was definitely one of the main reasons but it's also worth pointing out that simply being for tighter controls (as many are) is not necessarily anti-immigration. Immigration was one of the reasons why I voted to leave as well but it was less about numbers and more about making the system fairer for people outside the EU. I accept that's probably not a very common reason though.

[OutByEaster?]

Immigration has been on the front page of two of our biggest selling national papers for four days out of seven for the last six or seven years - their opinion has become the national opinion. They've rammed it into the national consciousness, closed the debate and massively influenced the nation - the margin of victory in Brexit suggests that if there were no Daily Mail or Express we'd still be flying the yellow stars.

[OutByEaster?]

(Also, I've had a cold this weekend. I'm a bit grumpy.)

 

[HanoiVillan]

1 hour ago, OutByEaster? said:

I believe the opposite to be true - there's a groundswell of growth of leftist feeling and leftist parties in Britain and across the continent - I believe there's a huge appetite from the public to start to claw back some semblance of sanity from a corporate and banking structure that is both totalitarian and harmful to most of us - there's a media trying to persuade people otherwise - it's like a volcano with a crusty mantle of Daily Express. 

Now there's also a growth of far right feeling across the continent (and here) but even then I think we're dealing with the same anger as that which is boosting the left - just pushed in a different direction by that self same media. 

What there definitely is, is an evacuation of the centre. No one wants more of the same, not the left, not the right, not people anywhere -only banks, corporations, the media and the MP's that are in power. 

 

You appear to be confusing 'leftism' (your post) with 'centre left parties' (my post), but I don't agree that there has been a 'groundswell of growth of leftist parties across the continent', it just isn't visible. The left will lose badly in both France and Germany in elections next year. In France there is no meaningful 'leftist' party and the centre left presidential incumbent is historically unpopular. The run off is guaranteed to be fought between right and far-right. In Germany the centre left party are more than ten points behind the centre right in polls, despite Merkel's increasingly poor approval ratings. Nobody expects them to be the senior partner in a coalition. The leftist party Die Linke are polling at slightly under 10%, which is precisely where they have been polling for the last five years. They are likely to be comfortably beaten by the far right, who are at 15%. Meanwhile in Spain, the split between radical left and centre left has meant both are unable to form a government. Italy has a centre left government, but one you wouldn't like lead by a man who specifically bases himself on Blair. Finally, the left wing party in the UK is currently down by double digits in opinion polls, while needing a lead of nearly double digits to form a majority in an election. 

I honestly don't know what you're basing your conclusion on, other than blind optimism. 

(PS get well soon!)

[Mantis]

1 hour ago, OutByEaster? said:

Immigration has been on the front page of two of our biggest selling national papers for four days out of seven for the last six or seven years - their opinion has become the national opinion. They've rammed it into the national consciousness, closed the debate and massively influenced the nation - the margin of victory in Brexit suggests that if there were no Daily Mail or Express we'd still be flying the yellow stars.

I simply do not buy this idea that it's "evil right-wing media" which is basically the cause of everything those on the left don't like. It's far more the case that newspapers reflect what their readers want rather than the other way around. If anything's responsible for immigration becoming a big issue it was the attempts of New Labour to shut down any kind of reasoned debate on the subject.

If the Daily Mail or Express didn't exist then there would be other papers with similar views and outputs to cater to the demand.

Edited September 25, 2016 by Mantis

[blandy]

11 hours ago, darrenm said:

Nah, sorry. Not quite the same. It's not about if you don't like Corbyn, you're weak-minded. I'm saying that anyone who reads all of the propaganda in the media and doesn't do any further research before deciding on a point of view is weak-minded. That's not even an insult, it's a definition.

There's no doubt that the media is disproportionately negative about Corbyn. There's plenty of evidence out there to show it. Anyone who dislikes Corbyn _because of this_ is, by definition, weak-minded.

Critical thinkers such as yourself who don't like Corbyn for other reasons don't fall into this category. I think you've possibly got a bit offended out of place there. I didn't lump all Corbyn critics together and (to me) it's pretty obvious that's not what I'm talking about. Sorry if it wasn't clear.

I wasn't offended at all. It was a question/comment. There's been a lot of stuff said in both directions which has been pretty inaccurate and dismissive. Examples include lame stream media, red tories, weak minded, then there's the stuff the other way like trots and so on.

i think re the media, yes the torygraph, mail, express are very anti, comically so in some of the articles, but tbh they are not read by corbyn supporting demographic anyway. The guardian, BBC, mirror, i, are balanced in my view. He should not be given an uncritical, free ride as he is on social media where he has a swarm of acolytes who will pounce on the unbelievers and naysayers with abuse.

[darrenm]

I absolutely agree with the last sentence. No one should get a free ride and be exempt from criticism. But I disagree about the reporting from the traditionally centre/left 4 you've listed there. It's been anything but balanced. A media watchdog is looking at suing the BBC over its blatant anti-Corbyn skewed reporting. The rest obviously have their existing sources from the PLP and none from momentum or the C factions. There's fact based evidence out there that all of these publications haven't given Corbyn fair reporting.

[blandy]

1 hour ago, darrenm said:

It's been anything but balanced. A media watchdog is looking at suing the BBC over its blatant anti-Corbyn skewed reporting.

Whoever this "media watchdog" is, they won't. [I'd wager that they're not any kind of independent watchdog, but more likely a pro-Corbyn entity seeking to influence coverage]

As far as I recall, a fairly rudimentary study of the media coverage of Corbyn a while ago showed the Tory press to be anti, and the rest to be balanced. These studies and surveys anyway have to be limited in what they can show. I mean as an example there are more negative stories about (say) Donald Trump in the press and on TV that there are positive ones - this isn't because of anti-Trump bias, it's because he's a massive numpty, with a record of doing and saying bad and contradictory and brainless things.

So it is with Corbyn. When he does something feeble the fair media will both report and comment upon it. Yes, Murdoch papers and Dacre papers will slate him whatever.

I think as an aside that his media "act" and his leadership act are actually improving from the very low starting point, though there's still a long way to go.

[tonyh29]

14 hours ago, darrenm said:

Nah, sorry. Not quite the same. It's not about if you don't like Corbyn, you're weak-minded. I'm saying that anyone who reads all of the propaganda in the media and doesn't do any further research before deciding on a point of view is weak-minded. That's not even an insult, it's a definition.

 

unless they come to a different conclusion to the other person of course

[peterms]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

Whoever this "media watchdog" is, they won't. [I'd wager that they're not any kind of independent watchdog, but more likely a pro-Corbyn entity seeking to influence coverage]

As far as I recall, a fairly rudimentary study of the media coverage of Corbyn a while ago showed the Tory press to be anti, and the rest to be balanced. These studies and surveys anyway have to be limited in what they can show. I mean as an example there are more negative stories about (say) Donald Trump in the press and on TV that there are positive ones - this isn't because of anti-Trump bias, it's because he's a massive numpty, with a record of doing and saying bad and contradictory and brainless things.

So it is with Corbyn. When he does something feeble the fair media will both report and comment upon it. Yes, Murdoch papers and Dacre papers will slate him whatever.

I think as an aside that his media "act" and his leadership act are actually improving from the very low starting point, though there's still a long way to go.

There are two recent studies.  The one that focuses on the BBC is the MRC.  The basis of their view is measuring the amount of coverage given to pro- and anti-Corbyn views, and they find that the BBC gives twice the coverage to anti-Corbyn views that it gives to pro-Corbyn comment.  This is markedly out of line with (surprisingly) Sky news, which gives more equal coverage.  It's a serious breach of the statutory requirements required of the BBC.  What's more, it's not even the sly, insidious propaganda of something like the Today programme in ways which are hard to pinpoint - it's a simple and measurable issue of amount of coverage.  It's astonishingly brazen, and I think the reason legal action is being discussed is because of the quite flagrant breach of the BBC's statutory duty.

Another piece of work was done by the LSE.  It starts from the position that the media have an entirely legitimate role in holding politicians to account, but that what Corbyn has faced has been a campaign of vilification.  Again, this work is based on documented study of actual coverage over a period.

Interestingly, given the points made earlier in this thread about the need for the government of the day to be contested by an opposition, the study comments that this media bias actually undermines the fundamental democratic need for this contestation to take place in a way which is openly and honestly reported.

 

[blandy]

12 minutes ago, peterms said:

There are two recent studies.  The one that focuses on the BBC is the MRC.  The basis of their view is measuring the amount of coverage given to pro- and anti-Corbyn views, and they find that the BBC gives twice the coverage to anti-Corbyn views that it gives to pro-Corbyn comment.  This is markedly out of line with (surprisingly) Sky news, which gives more equal coverage.  It's a serious breach of the statutory requirements required of the BBC.  What's more, it's not even the sly, insidious propaganda of something like the Today programme in ways which are hard to pinpoint - it's a simple and measurable issue of amount of coverage.  It's astonishingly brazen, and I think the reason legal action is being discussed is because of the quite flagrant breach of the BBC's statutory duty.

Another piece of work was done by the LSE.  It starts from the position that the media have an entirely legitimate role in holding politicians to account, but that what Corbyn has faced has been a campaign of vilification.  Again, this work is based on documented study of actual coverage over a period.

Interestingly, given the points made earlier in this thread about the need for the government of the day to be contested by an opposition, the study comments that this media bias actually undermines the fundamental democratic need for this contestation to take place in a way which is openly and honestly reported.

 

The LSE one, I think we've discussed before. It shows that the Tory press over the period of time of the study were anti Corbyn, and that the other press wasn't either anti or pro, to any particular extent.

As I said above, or implied, these "studies" are almost an exercise in confirmation bias.

For example the one on the BBC - it seems perfectly reasonable to me that when 175 Labour MPs voted no confidence in Corbyn ,and his cabinet resigned en masse, that the coverage of him during that 10 day period would be negative - it is after all a story about how  leader doesn't have the confidence of his parliamentary party. It is also my recollection that the BBC covered the story in more depth and detail, though I obviously didn't see all the bulletins.

There's also the point that no one is making any fuss over the study showing ITV or Sky coverage of Corbyn as being less than impartial because it showed more positive stories or more airtime than negative (in that short period).

There's another factor at play, too. The MRC study looks at the amount of seconds airtime given on news bulletins to critics/supporters. it also says that across the wider bbc the alleged bias wasn't there

Quote

It’s important to acknowledge that, in the case of the BBC, the sample did not reflect the breadth of its news coverage which spans many different programmes on both television and radio, as well as its 24 hour news channel. Indeed, both the Andrew Marr Show and BBC Two’s Newsnight were key vehicles that, at times, leveraged issues and sources favourable to Corbyn across the wider media.

In essence it seems to reflect editorial policy in terms of prominence given to a news story over a short timescale on news programmes only. We often see stories where they go along the lines of "such and such a person was today accused of [detailed allegations and story]...and then at the end about 3 seconds of "they strenuously deny the allegations".

The BBC requirement for balance covers their full output on an issue, not individual programmes.

So if you or I look at the studies we can draw whatever conclusions we ant from them, and feel that they show our views to be right. It seems to me that 175 MPs resigning from a shadow cabinet and / or voting no confidence in their own leader is a massive negative for Corbyn - I don't see how anyone can really deny that. I'd want and expect the media news to report and cover that. It's basically unprecedented. I'd want to hear why they'd done it. The same would be true, if, say a leader were to sack their cabinet - I'd want to hear why.

I an perhaps see the confirmation bias that I think he's useless and the overall coverage tends to reflect that reality (to me). Maybe others think the media are all stacked against him and these reports back up (to them) that reality?

[HanoiVillan]

4 hours ago, darrenm said:

I absolutely agree with the last sentence. No one should get a free ride and be exempt from criticism. But I disagree about the reporting from the traditionally centre/left 4 you've listed there. It's been anything but balanced. A media watchdog is looking at suing the BBC over its blatant anti-Corbyn skewed reporting. The rest obviously have their existing sources from the PLP and none from momentum or the C factions. There's fact based evidence out there that all of these publications haven't given Corbyn fair reporting.

On the last page you mentioned 'snidey articles with false assertions pretending to be balanced' or very similar in the Guardian. I was wondering if you could provide a link to these articles.