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

[blandy]

50 minutes ago, darrenm said:

I think the Tories are terrified of him

Wow! But fair enough, as you say, each to their own.

[Mantis]

56 minutes ago, Chindie said:

Yes the only people terrified of him are in the Labour Party.

Don't blame them either. He's destroying the Labour party.

[peterms]

The reason why the Tories and those large parts of the media which exist to serve the interests of the rich and powerful don't like Corbyn is not so much to do with him and his personal qualities, but because the rapid growth of his support and the enthusiasm behind it disturbs the status quo.

In recent years, the Tories have been successful in building some degree of consensus between the two major parties, which they found very comfortable.  Disagreements were about marginal and minor issues, not about things like Trident, war, increasing inequality.  In politics-speak, they had moved the Overton window to the right.  Fairly minor issues have become seen as radical, and the debate has shifted to being about those things rather than things like "taking control of the commanding heights of the economy" as the expression went in the 60s, or doing something like setting up the NHS, or starting the provision of public utilities and housing - great, radical steps which were made many years ago.  Now, we have a Labour party which can start illegal wars, or run a candidate for leader who previously worked as a lobbyist for one of the organisations which would dismantle the NHS.

Seeing this comfortable consensus challenged is really not very palatable for the Tories.  Much better that such ideas weren't aired, and we just argued about trivia that doesn't really rock the boat.

If people continue to express support for Corbyn and the policies he supports, and if the Labour Party actually starts to oppose the consensus instead of for example maintaining the shameful five-year silence in the face of lies about public spending rather than corporate theft, fraud and irresponsibility having caused the last crash, who knows where it might end?  Best tell people not to bother their heads with such talk.

[blandy]

42 minutes ago, peterms said:

The reason why the Tories and those large parts of the media which exist to serve the interests of the rich and powerful don't like Corbyn is not so much to do with him and his personal qualities, but because the rapid growth of his support and the enthusiasm behind it disturbs the status quo.

That's one diagnosis. It's not mine, I have to say. I think it's rather less sinister and more visceral, personally.

It's like it was with Michael Foot (who was far less incompetent, but similarly lefty). It's like it was with the GLC and Ken Livingstone. These people (Corbyn, Foot, Red Ken) are absolutely no threat to the likes of Murdoch, Dacre, Barclay Brothers, Desmond etc. or to their interest,  but what they are is intensely annoying to them. These people and many of their columnists just basically loathe "socialists" and particularly "1970s socialists". They see them as the opposite of what they believe they themselves to be. They see themselves as people who have got where they are through hard work, and brilliance, and to be deserving of respect and being listened to and kowtowed to. They view the "socialists" as lazy, stupid, weak, deserving of scorn and something to be exterminated. They see them as a symptom of and supporter of a culture of benefit scrounging, scruffy oiks. Something that spoils the view.

To these medi barons and others, they're in the same bracket as single mothers, immigrants, and all the other groups of undesireables.

But not as a threat.

[peterms]

I think all that's true, but they also see discussion of ideas outside a narrow band of opinion as a potential threat, depending on the support such ideas might attract.

That's why for example such a lot of effort was made to limit the teaching of economics in universities to something which would reinforce the status quo.  Thankfully there is now some resistance to that.

In areas where thought can't be so directly controlled, then other tactics are used, and one of those is seeking to demonise and discredit people who are seen as carriers of unwelcome ideas, place them beyond the pale, like you would quarantine a potentially infectious disease.  That's not a new thing, of course.

Sinister?  Yes, it's pretty sinister.  And also visceral, for many of them. 

[blandy]

2 minutes ago, peterms said:

I think all that's true, but they also see discussion of ideas outside a narrow band of opinion as a potential threat, depending on the support such ideas might attract....

In areas where thought can't be so directly controlled, then other tactics are used, and one of those is seeking to demonise and discredit people who are seen as carriers of unwelcome ideas, place them beyond the pale, like you would quarantine a potentially infectious disease.  That's not a new thing, of course.

Sinister?  Yes, it's pretty sinister.  And also visceral, for many of them. 

Yeah, I suppose so. Though I don't think (despite "momentum" and all that) that there's much chance of Corbyn & Co. ever being in a position to be an actual threat, rather than a theoretical one. He will not get elected as PM. Labour will not win a Gen. Election with him at the helm.

Definitely agree on the demonising of people with different views - there Barons are, after all, conservatives. I agree the status quo suits them just fine and they don't want any change. But Corbyn and his old style socialism aren't going to change things.

Labour seems to be permanently broken by it all, which is bad for everyone Until or unless the flakey dreamers wake up, it's free reign for the Barons from the tories and everything's cushty

[Mantis]

From a purely political point of view it's actually in the interests of the Tories to keep Corbyn going for as long as possible.

[sharkyvilla]

2 hours ago, Mantis said:

From a purely political point of view it's actually in the interests of the Tories to keep Corbyn going for as long as possible.

Exactly, unless there is a huge turnaround in Scotland, Labour would need to overwhelmingly win in middle-class England.  I really don't think there is much appetite for left-wing policies amongst the middle-class, I mean when was the last time there was a left-wing government?  Added to the poll the other day that suggested 2.5m Labour voters who voted for Brexit don't intend to vote for the party again, who is left?

[OutByEaster?]

5 hours ago, peterms said:

The reason why the Tories and those large parts of the media which exist to serve the interests of the rich and powerful don't like Corbyn is not so much to do with him and his personal qualities, but because the rapid growth of his support and the enthusiasm behind it disturbs the status quo.

In recent years, the Tories have been successful in building some degree of consensus between the two major parties, which they found very comfortable.  Disagreements were about marginal and minor issues, not about things like Trident, war, increasing inequality.  In politics-speak, they had moved the Overton window to the right.  Fairly minor issues have become seen as radical, and the debate has shifted to being about those things rather than things like "taking control of the commanding heights of the economy" as the expression went in the 60s, or doing something like setting up the NHS, or starting the provision of public utilities and housing - great, radical steps which were made many years ago.  Now, we have a Labour party which can start illegal wars, or run a candidate for leader who previously worked as a lobbyist for one of the organisations which would dismantle the NHS.

Seeing this comfortable consensus challenged is really not very palatable for the Tories.  Much better that such ideas weren't aired, and we just argued about trivia that doesn't really rock the boat.

If people continue to express support for Corbyn and the policies he supports, and if the Labour Party actually starts to oppose the consensus instead of for example maintaining the shameful five-year silence in the face of lies about public spending rather than corporate theft, fraud and irresponsibility having caused the last crash, who knows where it might end?  Best tell people not to bother their heads with such talk.

If I could I'd spend the rest of the evening clicking "Like" under this post.

 

[tonyh29]

8 hours ago, darrenm said:

 I think the Tories are terrified of him which is why he's painted in these ways. But each to their own (y)

he's the best thing that ever happened to the Tory party since Ed's stone  ...

[tonyh29]

5 hours ago, peterms said:

The reason why the Tories and those large parts of the media which exist to serve the interests of the rich and powerful don't like Corbyn is not so much to do with him and his personal qualities, but because the rapid growth of his support and the enthusiasm behind it disturbs the status quo.

as we've seen previously  Twitter support does not equate to  coming near to being PM 

Edited September 27, 2016 by tonyh29

[peterms]

1 hour ago, tonyh29 said:

as we've seen previously  Twitter support does not equate to  coming near to being PM 

That's another interesting point.  The Tories have spent some time and effort trying to gerrymander the vote, going back to the Poll Tax and more recently things like ending automatic registration of students, and reducing security of tenure so that poorer people have to move around a lot more and so that many of them won't get on the register each time they move.  The US Republicans have done a similar thing in a more overtly racist way, creating obstacles to black people being registered.

Lots of these non-voters are users of social media.  If social media can be used to engage with these people with a view to getting them registered, it will be another cause for concern for the forces of darkness.

[tonyh29]

1 hour ago, peterms said:

That's another interesting point.  The Tories have spent some time and effort trying to gerrymander the vote, going back to the Poll Tax and more recently things like ending automatic registration of students, and reducing security of tenure so that poorer people have to move around a lot more and so that many of them won't get on the register each time they move.  The US Republicans have done a similar thing in a more overtly racist way, creating obstacles to black people being registered.

Lots of these non-voters are users of social media.  If social media can be used to engage with these people with a view to getting them registered, it will be another cause for concern for the forces of darkness.

It worked well with Brexit , so why not

 

Gerrymandering , there's one for Chris and his coincidences thread as this is the labour outlet word of the day that they are all simultaneously and unrelated using

The current system favours the main 2 parties ( we will continue to call labour a main party for now ) but actually favours labour more ? ....  As I've read it labour would get more seats for the same number of votes as the conservatives .... presumably Labour  could have fixed this injustice whilst they were in power but I dunno maybe they were busy and never got around to it .... 

[chrisp65]

29 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

Gerrymandering ........ this is the labour outlet word of the day

 

you sure?

 

[TrentVilla]

12 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

as we've seen previously  Twitter support does not equate to  coming near to being PM 

Otherwise inexplicably Piers Morgan would be in number 10.

[peterms]

9 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

Gerrymandering , there's one for Chris and his coincidences thread as this is the labour outlet word of the day that they are all simultaneously and unrelated using

The current system favours the main 2 parties ( we will continue to call labour a main party for now ) but actually favours labour more ? ....  As I've read it labour would get more seats for the same number of votes as the conservatives .... presumably Labour  could have fixed this injustice whilst they were in power but I dunno maybe they were busy and never got around to it .... 

Haven't seen the comments from Labour people, but I suppose they are about the current boundary changes.

My comments are about keeping people off the register, which is a different issue.

Of course they're related.  After a few years work reducing the number of younger and poorer people on the register, you can go to the Boundary Commission and ask for a review, as some constituencies mysteriously seem to have fewer people, so maybe you should take three of them and merge them into two.  Which is called consolidating the gain.

[blandy]

There are something like 2 million extra people currently on the electoral roll who registered for the first time before the Referendum. They are known voters, in known places. The tories have decided not to allow that data to be used in the dividing up of the constituencies - they are going to use out of date electoral roll data.

It must be coincidence that these people are predominantly younger people, more likely to be Labour, or Green or basically "not tory", rather than any manipulation or gerrymandering on the part of the tories. I mean those chaps wouldn't do anything untoward at all, to help themselves, would they?

 

[Jon]

20 hours ago, blandy said:

 Until or unless the flakey dreamers wake up, it's free reign for the Barons from the tories and everything's cushty

Sorry, who are these 'flakey dreamers'?

[blandy]

3 minutes ago, Jon said:

Sorry, who are these 'flakey dreamers'?

People who think that they can bring about a socialist eutopia where the Country is run by Jeremy Corbyn, simply through the power of persuading the nation that he is a nice man and he's right and everyone else is wrong. People who willfully don't recognise the world and the country as it is, rather than as "it should be". People whose "political journey" is one where "well, I wouldn't start from here".

There are going to be an awful lot of people who will feel let down once the realisation dawns that Jeremy is not the messiah.

[tonyh29]

16 minutes ago, blandy said:

There are something like 2 million extra people currently on the electoral roll who registered for the first time before the Referendum. They are known voters, in known places. The tories have decided not to allow that data to be used in the dividing up of the constituencies - they are going to use out of date electoral roll data.

It must be coincidence that these people are predominantly younger people, more likely to be Labour, or Green or basically "not tory", rather than any manipulation or gerrymandering on the part of the tories. I mean those chaps wouldn't do anything untoward at all, to help themselves, would they?

 

i thought half the problem for remain was that they weren't voters