Corbyn & Cabinet in the Media

[8den]

Interesting to see you try to dismiss the conclusions in advance. No-one bothered to comment on it whenever it was I posted it.

I know I'm on ignore but no one is dismissing the research in advance they're asking to see it you simple minded ding bat

 

[Greasy Boiler]

Markymark's bollocks notwithstanding things don't look great so far.

 

[nino_savatte]

The death camps?
Discourse moves so far that the public are right wing shits and the tiny extra- parliamentary left are the normals.
This is crazy. Sad thing is if you're writing it, you're lunatic enough to believe it.

You could have replied to me directly but you're a coward and a prima donna. You're in denial about the how far political discourse has travelled rightwards. You're also more than happy to deny a space for the articulation of counter-hegemonic discourses. That makes you little better than a death camp guard. Franco would have loved you.

But your reply, somewhat characteristically, deliberately misrepresents and distorts. Tell me: do you know what a straw man argument is?

 

[nino_savatte]

Interesting to see you try to dismiss the conclusions in advance. No-one bothered to comment on it whenever it was I posted it.

Interesting to see that you're still posting flawed polling to confirm your biases.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Meanwhile there is, as I've been saying, no check on the Tories. They know we can't win with Corbyn and those that really need a labour government - and I've listed our achievements before - suffer under the Tories.

Hunt can destroy the nhs, because apparently there is no difference.

And the metropolitan elite sleep soundly because they're pure.

Always fun to see a private-schooled Oxbridge grad giving it some about "elites".

 

[ViolentPanda]

No, I shut up because of the demands for unity from the left backing miliband. And I shouldn't have.

Now the Tories have no credible opposition they're not worried about being unpopular. Heavens, they're falling apart, on the verge of a split, and Corbyn has them stretching their lead.

And you don't think it has anything to do with Corbyn?

Exactly as I said "it won't be Corbyn's fault".

"The left" of what? The unions elected Miliband, and they're about as "left" as your right testicle.
If you're going to make claims, at least base them on facts rather than cant.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Labour weren't a credible opposition before Corbyn - even worse they were going along with a lot of the tory policies.

Tories had decided they were going to privatize the nhs before even they won the election against *your* labour.

At least with Corbyn there's someone objecting to creeping privatization - your lot have joined in enthusiastically. Very little difference in *your* labour or conservatives as far as privatizing goes.

Well no, tories destroying the nhs isn't Corbyn's fault. You're a liar if you say it is.

Tories like James Purnell, Stephen Byers, Alan Milburn, Jack Straw and a host of other neoliberal "new" Labour pus-suckers, who picked up the NHS privatisation ball, and ran with it - some making some extra-curricular wonga from the very companies they smarmed.
Blair, Brown and their coteries had plenty of chances to nullify the moves Thatcher and Major had made to create the internal market in the NHS, and reverse the privatisation of ancillary functions, but they didn't, because their faith in "the market" was and is just as strong as the faith of the Conservative governments. Anyone supporting "the maquis"/"sensible Labour" is a crypto-Conservative, and is aware of the fact.

 

[DotCommunist]

its one you have to keep reminding yourself of given the orthodoxy on the economic front has been so normalised. These people are not far off doing a rand and deifying the 'free' market. Dingbats.

 

[nino_savatte]

"Credible opposition" in MM's view is acquiescence and pusillanimity. In other words, token opposition with the continuation of symbolic violence in the public sphere of debate; the rigged political game that limits discourse and imprisons the minds of much of the public.

 

[ViolentPanda]

This being the same as the Tories line only washes of you think that we'd be doing what Hunt is doing, if you think the Tories would have doubled real terms spending on education, introduced the minimum wage, and so on (see unthread). It's a tiresome excuse for adopting a pure but unelectable position.

How long do you think that you can shore up your political position through referencing policies that took place a generation ago?
How long before someone says "that 'real terms' spending on education, a lot of that was on infrastructure, not on the students"?
Your spew out cant like you're dropping pearls of wisdom. There's nothing wise about them.

I have no doubt Corbynistas care passionately about these things. It's just that they are more interested in adopting positions that show they care passionately than they are about appealing to the electorate, getting elected and actually doing anything. Because they don't care about appealing to the electorate, and hence don't care particularly about being elected, they allow the Tories to take ever more extreme right wing positions. It's the Tories and the Corbynistas that don't care about actually making a difference to ordinary people.

Do you agree with the Corbynistas that they should ignore the electorate and carry on regardless of popularity?

The problem for anyone actually interested in the Labour Party being the party of Labour, is that your - i.e. the right of the party - entire approach is to mimic the Tory position, but to put a presentational spin - a garnish - on the shit sandwich you're trying to persuade us to eat.
Corbyn at least proposes some moderately social-democratic ideas. Your side, all they've done so far is piss and moan about how unfair Party democracy is, and cuss off their party leader because they wanted to be the one on the footplate, not some superannuated lefty who doesn't love big business.

 

[ViolentPanda]

"We believe this and argue it more passionately than you. Because we're so passionate we won't compromise and sod the electorate"

If you were characterising a party that practiced democratic centralism, you might have a point above.
As you're characterising a party that practices direct democracy - currently - your characterisation is rubbish, and even if it were accurate, the issue is easily solvable. Have your "sensible Labour" MPs undertake a membership drive, punting their ideas to the general public - the electorate. What better way to show the power of their vision?
Except that we both know that such a drive would serve only to point out that your people have nothing to sell, and that your incessant whining about how Corbyn's people ignore the electorate is a cover for the intellectual and ideological vacancy that is "the moderates"/"sensible Labour".

 

[two sheds]

No, I shut up because of the demands for unity from the left backing miliband. And I shouldn't have.

I've noticed our newer Corbynistas don't bother actually doing anything except coming to meetings and voting - not arguing - for what they believe in. It seems to be the new line.

Ahh clues as to the bitterness - the new members won't listen to you and you're no longer getting the respect you feel you richly deserve as a long-term Blairite .

Are you really surprised they won't talk to you if your way of discussing is the one you've taken here - sneering instead of addressing points people make?

What are the motions these new members are voting for, by the way?

 

[Knotted]

Interesting to see you try to dismiss the conclusions in advance. No-one bothered to comment on it whenever it was I posted it.

I've found where you've posted a link to an article (not the poll itself btw) which discusses a TUC funded poll which asks former former Labour supporters and others who have switched their support and non-voters about the pros and cons of voting Labour (among other things). And the replies are basically text book pros and cons of voting for a center left party. Pros - Labour are on the side of ordinary working people and will improve the NHS, cons - they would spend too much and can't be trusted on the economy, they would make it too easy for people living on benefits.

Non of this suprises me. The author of your article only quotes the cons and concludes from this single result that voters and non voters both question Labour competence in government (ie. Blair and Brown's governments). If you read him carefully he refrains from saying that non-voters have the same overall views as voters. And indeed the statistics hint at rather complex picture where roughly speaking the public are well "to the right" of Labour on welfare and immigration and well "to the left" of Labour in terms of taxing the rich, not bailing out bankers, education, health and investing in the economy. But note - a lot of people were plumbing for "don't know" options.

You should always note that it is especially hard to tell where non-voters stand as there are plenty of people who genuinely don't know and don't care when it comes to politics in general and westminister politics in particular. They aren't likely to be wasting their time with polls like this and are always going to be under represented.

I would just like to add that as somebody who used to be in a left wing party that had locally limited but successfully won over many non-voters, that these are our people, the people that we should be listening to. Sure, they aren't an army of potential Corbyn voters but dismissing them as a particular part of the political spectrum is both ridiculous and patronising. If polls tell us anything it is that people in general do not fit comfortably on a political spectrum. This blather about Corbyn being too left wing is getting tedious. To be sure, not many people share his politics but then not many people share the politics of Tony Blair or any centrist politician you care to name.

 

[Knotted]

Another little thing on this "only the labour right know how to be elected" theme. I was watching Prime Ministers question time. I don't often do this, but anyway Corbyn was asking about the housing crisis and Cameron batted him back not by making out that he was some loony left but by going through Labour's own abysmal record. As far as I am aware this is standard. Opposition question the government, government point out that opposition are just as shit, conclusion - the country has to live with a shit government. At the level of westminister rhetoric, nothing has changed since Corbyn won the leadership. Corbyn is scared of his own shadow at times, especially when it comes to workers rights. He's made barely a squeak about the BMA strike. And Corbyn is tied to the reputation of previous Labour governments - a fact Cameron hammers him on. A more right wing leader will have exactly the same problems holding the government to account and will have even more difficulty overcoming such problems.

 

[Pickman's model]

Markymark's bollocks notwithstanding things don't look great so far.

yeh well nine months into a five year stretch of cameron that's understandable. and they'll get worse.

 

[8den]

I've found where you've posted a link to an article (not the poll itself btw) which discusses a TUC funded poll which asks former former Labour supporters and others who have switched their support and non-voters about the pros and cons of voting Labour (among other things). And the replies are basically text book pros and cons of voting for a center left party. Pros - Labour are on the side of ordinary working people and will improve the NHS, cons - they would spend too much and can't be trusted on the economy, they would make it too easy for people living on benefits.

Non of this suprises me. The author of your article only quotes the cons and concludes from this single result that voters and non voters both question Labour competence in government (ie. Blair and Brown's governments). If you read him carefully he refrains from saying that non-voters have the same overall views as voters. And indeed the statistics hint at rather complex picture where roughly speaking the public are well "to the right" of Labour on welfare and immigration and well "to the left" of Labour in terms of taxing the rich, not bailing out bankers, education, health and investing in the economy. But note - a lot of people were plumbing for "don't know" options.

You should always note that it is especially hard to tell where non-voters stand as there are plenty of people who genuinely don't know and don't care when it comes to politics in general and westminister politics in particular. They aren't likely to be wasting their time with polls like this and are always going to be under represented.

I would just like to add that as somebody who used to be in a left wing party that had locally limited but successfully won over many non-voters, that these are our people, the people that we should be listening to. Sure, they aren't an army of potential Corbyn voters but dismissing them as a particular part of the political spectrum is both ridiculous and patronising. If polls tell us anything it is that people in general do not fit comfortably on a political spectrum. This blather about Corbyn being too left wing is getting tedious. To be sure, not many people share his politics but then not many people share the politics of Tony Blair or any centrist politician you care to name.

That is way more thoughtful a response than Walberg deserves.


Seeing as MM is staunchly blairist perhaps we can start referring to the centre right wing of the party as "the funky bunch?"

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

To be sure, not many people share his politics but then not many people share the politics of Tony Blair or any centrist politician you care to name.

Yes. The initial New Labour strategy, essentially trying to be about an inch left of the Tories, relied on most people to the left of that point voting for them on a 'least worst' option. And to be fair it worked for quite a while, as an electoral strategy at least. That's now totally gone in Scotland, and looking increasingly untenable in England and Wales too. Rather than address it though, even as a very cynical electoral strategy approach, they seem to be trying to convince themselves there's a huge number of people just dying to vote for a Burnham or a Cooper (or Ummunna or Hunt) despite not being able to articulate what they're actually for.

 

[killer b]

Stop letting these two wankers shit up poltics ffs.

 

[YouSir]

Yes. The initial New Labour strategy, essentially trying to be about an inch left of the Tories, relied on most people to the left of that point voting for them on a 'least worst' option. And to be fair it worked for quite a while, as an electoral strategy at least. That's now totally gone in Scotland, and looking increasingly untenable in England and Wales too. Rather than address it though, even as a very cynical electoral strategy approach, they seem to be trying to convince themselves there's a huge number of people just dying to vote for a Burnham or a Cooper (or Ummunna or Hunt) despite not being able to articulate what they're actually for.

They're for moderate change and sensible progress. And winning votes, that too. I don't see what's not crystal clear about that as a political position...

 

[redsquirrel]

Markymark's bollocks notwithstanding things don't look great so far.

They don't, though first of all we need to be sure we are comparing like with like, were the two polls MM quoted performed using the same methodology? I couldn't find anything on UKPR.

That said I think Labour probably are "behind" where they were in the last electoral cycle. There are a number of reasons for that, killer b has gone through some of them on this thread, loss of the Scottish vote (which I don't believe anyone thought would be brought back in nine months - it's going to take years for Labour to rebuild in Scotland), massive propaganda war against Corbyn, the coalition having a very bad period in 2011, etc.

I don't think Labour are doing great but I don't see any evidence that if Cooper, Burnham or Kendell were leader they would be doing any better.

 

[Greasy Boiler]

Yeah, apparently it didn't include first-time voters or people who didn't vote last time since the pollsters are now all worried about potentially over-representing labour support.

 

[tim]

This being the same as the Tories line only washes of you think that we'd be doing what Hunt is doing, if you think the Tories would have doubled real terms spending on education, introduced the minimum wage, and so on (see unthread). It's a tiresome excuse for adopting a pure but unelectable position.

I have no doubt Corbynistas care passionately about these things. It's just that they are more interested in adopting positions that show they care passionately than they are about appealing to the electorate, getting elected and actually doing anything. Because they don't care about appealing to the electorate, and hence don't care particularly about being elected, they allow the Tories to take ever more extreme right wing positions. It's the Tories and the Corbynistas that don't care about actually making a difference to ordinary people.

Do you agree with the Corbynistas that they should ignore the electorate and carry on regardless of popularity?

They should marshal their arguments and explain them to the electorate. Politics should not be about appeasing prejudices, particularly those of the media, but about presenting a coherent set of policies and winning support for them.

If you have a coherent agenda that can be differentiated from that of the Tories and the current Labour leadership, you should do the same here, rather than just whinge.

 

[two sheds]

Stop letting these two wankers shit up poltics ffs.

How? Just ignoring them means we'll get a thread that is 75% full of childish 'look at this article it's brilliant you're all stupid Corbynistas he's never going to get elected did I mention that you're all stupid Corbynistas why don't you agree with me?'

 

[MarkyMarrk]

So the Labour Party leadership have decided that CLPs should not debate Europe. We should campaign to stay in. Decided for us.

I'm actually really torn as to whether this is a good thing or not. However, it's not going to play well in the media, and the way its been revealed is shambolic. Again.

 

[butchersapron]

So the Labour Party leadership have decided that CLPs should not debate Europe. We should campaign to stay in. Decided for us.

They haven't. And you were going to anyway. And as if you exist.

 

[two sheds]

What are the motions these new members are voting for, by the way?

MarkyMarrk

 

[MarkyMarrk]

A paedophile has been allowed to join us: Fury as paedophile campaigner is allowed to join Labour party | The Times
I give up.

 

[butchersapron]

A paedophile has been allowed to join us: Fury as paedophile campaigner is allowed to join Labour party | The Times
I give up.

You never started. The idea that you are or ever were a labour party member is laughable.

 

[stethoscope]

There was never 'join us' and 'I give up'. This is all a charade.

 

[butchersapron]

A paedophile has been allowed to join us: Fury as paedophile campaigner is allowed to join Labour party | The Times
I give up.

There are 1000s of paedos in your party btw - most of them when blair was in charge.