[tomtom]

So where is JC going to get the 40% of the vote he needs to have a chance of winning btb? Who's going to vote for him?

People don't just vote for policies - they are voting for a leader - and can you genuinely say he's a good leader?

[BrutusTheBear]

So the consistent repetition of these messages by the mainstream media seeps into the consciousness of the sheeple of our country.   He's incompetent as a leader and ineffective opposition.  The 'news' tells us it is true and we soak it up, despite the fact that it maybe what we are looking for.   BBC is full of Tory ringers so not a reliable source for unbiased information, privately owned media is for the most part owned by those who benefit from Tory/ Blairite policy.  Blairite/Progress linked MPs and members of the Labour Party are linked corporately to their paymasters who benefit from Tory/Blairite policy.  The guy is being undermined from within in collusion with mainstream media and undermined directly by the mainstream media.  I don't believe a word of it, so is the logic I don't think he'll get enough votes therefore I won't vote for him? Where's he going to get the votes from?  From decent people who can see through all the turd and would like a better less selfish society?  Nice to see there a few lurkers that might think differently🙂

[tomtom]

Ha ha - media conspiracy theory :D

Seriously - do you think he's a good leader who could lead this country? Effectively?

[Sidehaas]

So the consistent repetition of these messages by the mainstream media seeps into the consciousness of the sheeple of our country.   He's incompetent as a leader and ineffective opposition.  The 'news' tells us it is true and we soak it up, despite the fact that it maybe what we are looking for.   BBC is full of Tory ringers so not a reliable source for unbiased information, privately owned media is for the most part owned by those who benefit from Tory/ Blairite policy.  Blairite/Progress linked MPs and members of the Labour Party are linked corporately to their paymasters who benefit from Tory/Blairite policy.  The guy is being undermined from within in collusion with mainstream media and undermined directly by the mainstream media.  I don't believe a word of it, so is the logic I don't think he'll get enough votes therefore I won't vote for him? Where's he going to get the votes from?  From decent people who can see through all the turd and would like a better less selfish society?  Nice to see there a few lurkers that might think differently🙂

Does any of this help? Nothing has changed in my views of him since last summer. Currently I find myself as a Labour party member who might not even vote Labour

Hopefully the link will work as I don't want to retype it all.

http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,11868.msg529440.html#msg529440

[Will Hunt]

For the 1st time in my lifetime there is a party leader that is not owned by corporate entities, that has policies that I broadly agree with, gives a f**k about the least fortunate, that is clearly not led by ego or self interest, wants to save the NHS from profiteers (and isn't lying), believes in a living wage, wants a more equal society, wants to end the murderous abusive cuts to welfare..  and you folk are bleating (pun intended) on about lack of leadership, lack of opposition...  etc. Etc.

That's all fine, I support it. Now, step outside your own social circle for a moment and gaze at the rest of the electorate. No, not the 0.001% of the electorate who fervently support JC enough to attend his rallies, the other lot - the centrist, slightly right leaning majority. They aren't going to vote for a party which JC is leading. The only way to win elections is to hold the centre ground, from where you can make slow branchings to the left. The revolution will not be televised because it isn't going to happen.

Or is it genuinely the consensus that you would prefer to be shafted further rather than support the policies above?

My view is that I'd rather not be shafted by the Conservatives. That's why I want a strong Labour party in opposition and in readiness to govern. I accept that, in a society dominated by Conservative voters, my ideals are unlikely to be fully realised, but I would like to get as close to them as possible.

Jeremy Corbyn's brand of socialism has a place in UK politics in the Green Party. If Labour had the potential to govern and also had the Greens snapping at their heels it would force them to adopt some more socialist policies. Think this doesn't work? We're currently leaving the European Union because the Conservatives got a bit nervy about UKIP, a party which I don't think has ever won a seat at a general election.

The problem with the left is that it prefers to get shafted while adopting a state of blissful righteousness over making some compromises with the electorate at large.

so is the logic I don't think he'll get enough votes therefore I won't vote for him?

No the logic is that I don't want to endorse futile populism.

By the way, Brutus, if you infer that I am a sheeple, brainwashed, a Blairite (actually you can infer that all you like, I am), a red Tory, a neo-con fascist, a scab or a chicken coup plotter, or if you persist in using conspiracy theories as arguments in a sensible political debate then I will be forced to issue you with one punter point.

[BrutusTheBear]

Why Ha ha?! You've pulled the tin foil hat/ conspiracy theory guff on me before.  You can't dismiss the connections that are made via corporations, parliament, media by calling it conspiracy theory anymore, that is weak.  Where's Georgie boy just got a job? Where did Owen Smith work before becoming an MP? It's a revolving door stitch up, that is fairly obvious to a reasonably intelligent onlooker, who has an inquiring mind and the ability to question the 'truths' that peddled to us continuously. WH you don't really need me to give examples do you?  It ain't conspiracy theory if it's provable is it?  So punter away but it will be a miscarriage of justice without a fair trial.

Do you think Theresa May is a good leader that is leading this country effectively?
(Answer mine and I'll answer yours)

[Sidehaas]

Relevant point to the Corbyn discussion by the way is that the Unite leadership vote result is due out at the beginning of next week and is apparently very close.

[BrutusTheBear]

eg. Rona Fairhead Chair of the BBC's governing trust, HSBC board member and former member of the Conservative Cabinet office. 

[Johnny Brown]

Have just spent Easter in the Tory echo chamber of the Welsh riviera and the worrying vibe is that they all think May is absolutely wonderful a much needed 'strong leader', even my Dad who is considering not voting tory for the first time in his life over brexit.

I think what has got potential to get interesting in this election is the turnout. People have had enough of politics. I suspect the working class demographic who voted for brexit just aren't going to bother - they won't be comfortable with Corbyn, UKIP are moribund and actually voting tory will be too big a step. I suspect too that the total physical number of tory votes may drop even as they gain seats.

Meanwhile you've got the middle class remain demographic who are mostly absolutely livid about the impending hard brexit and will be voting tactically/ LibDem en masse. Add to that the youth who normally wouldn't take an interest but have been politicised over the last year and something could happen.

[Will Hunt]

Why Ha ha?! You've pulled the tin foil hat/ conspiracy theory guff on me before.  You can't dismiss the connections that are made via corporations, parliament, media by calling it conspiracy theory anymore, that is weak.  Where's Georgie boy just got a job? Where did Owen Smith work before becoming an MP? It's a revolving door stitch up

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

Do you think Theresa May is a good leader that is leading this country effectively?
(Answer mine and I'll answer yours)

Now there's an interesting question.

Clause 1: "a good leader". I would say yes. She's made exactly the right call for the interests of her own party in calling a general election. Consider this hypothesis for a moment. In the recent history of western civilisation, politics has been characterised by the conflict between capitalists and socialists (or something approximating those things). Rich vs Poor. Consider now that this has been turned on it's side slightly and that when it comes to foreign policy and, more specifically, foreign trade policy, the conflict is now between Open and Closed. Theresa has been declared last woman standing in a leadership contest and is now left with the steaming turd of Brexit to deal with. She can't ignore it and hope that it goes away, she has to get her hands dirty. Consider that Theresa May never wanted Brexit. Consider that the pound rose in value today and Deutsche Bank said this:

Today's general election announcement changes the outlook. We do not see the election as a mandate for hard Brexit. Instead, assuming current polling proves correct, it should result in a larger Conservative majority. This will have three material implications, in our opinion."

 The three material changes cited by Deutsche Bank are as follows:

"The deadline to deliver a 'clean' Brexit without a lengthy transitional arrangement by 2019 far less pressing given that no general election will be due the year after."
Deutsche Bank argues that MPs pushing for a hard Brexit will have their influence diluted, thanks to a larger Conservative party majority.
Finally, Saravelos suggests that a fresh election strengthens "the PM's overall negotiating stance who in recent weeks has clearly fallen in line with the European negotiating approach."

So basically, by securing a greater majority in the commons, she will avoid the worst excesses of a hard Brexit (leaving the single market) by allowing a softer Brexit to be negotiated. For remainers, this could be the silver lining here.


Clause 2: "leading this country effectively". I'm going to say "no" from my own personal standpoint. However thus far there has been very little movement on domestic policy since so much of the oxygen of debate has been consumed by conversations about Brexit. There's not really very much evidence to weigh this objectively, but I certainly won't be voting Conservative!


Now, I've answered yours, so perhaps you would be so good as to address my points from last year which I don't believe you responded to.

One thing to consider (and I'm sure I've said this further up) is that the relationship between the media and people's opinions is not uni-directional. It is far too simplistic to say "The media hates Corbyn and they brainwash the people into hating him also", it's nowhere near as linear as that.
People generally read newspapers that reflect their own prejudice. Case in point, does anybody here read The Mail or The Sun? No. Why? Because they're full of vile right wing shit that we don't agree with. Newspaper editors know their readership and what they think, and they have a hard enough time flogging newspapers without trying to push stuff to the readers which they don't want to read. The content and tone of a paper will largely reflect the readership's opinion, but that doesn't mean that editors can't edge their readers towards one viewpoint or another on certain contentious issues. The relationship of influence between news content and readership opinion is very much circular.

Let's take this tenet and zoom out to look at the big picture. When you say "the media are biased against Corbyn", what you're actually saying is "the weight of popular opinion is against Corbyn and the media report on that". This is exacerbated in his case because he makes himself an easy target by not engaging with the media - i.e. he creates a vacuum which journalists need to fill - and unfortunately we live in a world where people enjoy the schadenfreude of laughing at the scruffy man with the beard.

I don't think it's a big conspiracy. I just think that outside of our little filter bubble of left-wing democratic socialists (or perhaps more accurately, revolutionary socialists, in the case of many Corbyn supporters) he's not very well liked. People do judge on looks. People do judge on personality. It is in our very nature. When you hold a minority view, as many of us do, it feels safe and cosy to tell yourself that there's a great conspiracy against you and your way of thinking. It reassures you that you're right and tells you that the majority of people are the ones who are wrong because they've been hoodwinked by an amorphous media bogeyman.

Corbyn's bloody great. He should be in the Green party (his Islington constituency would definitely re-elect him in a by-election should he defect), or hold some lesser position in the Labour party, influencing what they do.

With the obvious flaw of FPTP excepted, our parliamentary democracy is flipping brilliant, and Corbyn is breaking the model by trying to lead a party without compromise or consensus, and that is a bad thing (even the Guardian agrees with this).

[tomtom]

Do you think Theresa May is a good leader that is leading this country effectively?
(Answer mine and I'll answer yours)

I asked first :p but as you're being shy

Media conspiracy is a line used very successfully in the ascent of Adolf Hitler, Robert Mugabe and Donald Trump to name a few...

Didn't the canary (where those stories originate) get a bit slagging in the whole fake news debate?

Theresa May... I don't know if she's a good leader but she's keeping the Tories together better than JC is dealing with Labour (and really Tories are more split in many ways..). As a pm I suspect she will lead well (she made the correct choice for her and her party in calling a GE) but with bad consequences for the less wealthy - and the Brexit nightmare. Something her and JC have in common...

[Schnell]

Ha ha - media conspiracy theory :D

Seriously - do you think he's a good leader who could lead this country? Effectively?

It's a simple reality that the capitalists who own the media will defend their class interests by using their influence to try to discredit anyone that threatens them. Definitely not a conspiracy theory.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/bart-cammaerts-brooks-decillia-joa-o-magalha-es-and-ce-sar-jimenez-marti-nez/when-our-watchdog-be

https://theconversation.com/media-bias-against-jeremy-corbyn-shows-how-politicised-reporting-has-become-71593

[Oldmanmatt]

It's not that the country is "dominated" by Tory voters; it's that everyone even slightly left of centre is so hopelessly divided.

People talk about "holding the center ground", but really, the swing voters are the those who leap to the "bigotry du jour" and which ever wanker is shouting the loudest. Once it was "Worker rights!" and "Power to the people!", now it's "Immigrants!" and "Make Britain Great again!"

To be clear, how many on this thread are pondering between Tory or Labour?
Not many I'd imagine.
Most here are swinging between Lab/Lib/Green or a.n.other liberal to left party.
Until UKIP reared it's stinking head, the right wing fringe parties were so fringe as to be irrelevant. The Left and center are very much a victim of their own success. Half the population are willing to think, change, empathise and are not married to a single political party.
Half are traditionalists, genuine "conservatives", shading into downright Nazi's. Not every Tory is a wanker and plenty of Trots and hyper-holy Greens are of equal wanker status to those on the far right).

What we need, is a joining of those with a social conscience (which, I believe, is the uniting characteristic of everyone not on the right).

To everyone not a long time Lab supporter, Labour is horribly tainted by Blair and/or saddled with a "Socks and Sandals" image of ineffectual dreamers.
Oddly, I might have considered Brown...
Or that Bacon sandwich fella, what was his name?

[BrutusTheBear]

Didn't the whole media conspiracy thing originate from the CIA as a tool to discredit anyone asking questions about Kennedy's assassination?  (Point is, it's not an argument it's a method of 'brushing off'.)

A good leader that has bad consquences for the less wealthy? Hmmmmmm.  That would be the definition of poor leadership for me. 

Corbyn a good leader that could lead this Country effectively? 

Of course what anyone might determine to be the qualities of a good leader maybe completely different.  Should he be elected as PM we will find out won't we.  I like the fact he is principled, I like the fact that he has been calling the media out recently (you won't see that footage much on the BBC), I like that fact that he has had the strength to stand strong against the all the sniping and back stabbing, I like his beard and jam making, I love that he is not owned by anyone, I love that he is willing to stand up for others.  All qualities of what I would call a good leader.  Maybe the question should be will Corbyn be allowed to be a good leader because I can't foresee the sniping stopping. 

[TobyD]

Half are traditionalists, genuine "conservatives", shading into downright Nazi's. Not every Tory is a wanker and plenty of Trots and hyper-holy Greens are of equal wanker status to those on the far right).

See my facebook post: I think (on a brief glance) if i still lived in NA I'd probably vote Tory. The sitting MP grills Hunt all the time about the NHS. Which is a lot more than Corbyn does.

[jfdm]

Brutus - The media misconstruing what the Lab party has said. It's the actual MPs doing that. I am sure that you have listened to this, the full interview is an eye opener.
Exhibit A, Dawn Butler MP for Brent.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39659304
This is the problem, Labour has been off message for the last couple of years.
It's looked like a rabble from the outside, disagreements laid out in the open etc.

Jezzer doesn't seem to have a Malcom Tucker to sort out the loose cannons.
I'm not getting misty eyed over Blair, but the party view was then tightly controlled.
Alistar Campbell / Mandy ensured that there were enough Tuckers to go round everybody remained on message.

Jezzer needed to be in the first instance pragmatic, compromise to build up alliances and unify the party, which would develop some discipline within the party. Has he done that? See exhibit A, sadly day 2 of the election.

Just for some humour Butler should be getting some of the following treatment.


Having listened to Jezzers speech today, his ideas chime with mine.
It is just such a shame for me that he ballsed up about Brexit.
Maybe Labour could be the best out of a pretty bad lot.

[BrutusTheBear]

Painful interview with Dawn Butler

Love the clip very funny.  It's not Jezza's style though is it, that's what makes him different.
Campbell and Mandy are still there in the background pulling strings riling up the dissidents though (probably in a style not dissimilar to the clip) 

The best of a bad lot maybe...  So the flippant, simplified choices are;

a) a party that no longer has a purpose.
b) a party that would gladly poop on your disabled grandmother.
c) err the yellow ones.
d) the party that has lovely policies but is lead by someone nobody likes.
e) the party everyone should probably vote for, to save our asses, but won't.

[Will Hunt]

Brutus - The media misconstruing what the Lab party has said. It's the actual MPs doing that. I am sure that you have listened to this, the full interview is an eye opener.
Exhibit A, Dawn Butler MP for Brent.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39659304
This is the problem, Labour has been off message for the last couple of years.
It's looked like a rabble from the outside, disagreements laid out in the open etc.

Jezzer doesn't seem to have a Malcom Tucker to sort out the loose cannons.
I'm not getting misty eyed over Blair, but the party view was then tightly controlled.
Alistar Campbell / Mandy ensured that there were enough Tuckers to go round everybody remained on message.

Jezzer needed to be in the first instance pragmatic, compromise to build up alliances and unify the party, which would develop some discipline within the party. Has he done that? See exhibit A, sadly day 2 of the election.

Just for some humour Butler should be getting some of the following treatment.


Having listened to Jezzers speech today, his ideas chime with mine.
It is just such a shame for me that he ballsed up about Brexit.
Maybe Labour could be the best out of a pretty bad lot.

That poor woman. She's doing her best to promote the party and she's got nothing to work with other than wailing about how the election is rigged. How can you have an MP who doesn't know the lines? Who doesn't know what party policy is? How were Labour not prepared for a general election to be called? It's been widely discussed in the press for months now - "why hasn't May called the election yet?" What the fuck are they doing all day?! THIS is our opposition, folks.
It's Eddie Mair for Christ's sake. It's the jolly drive-time wind down with funny jingles and panda updates. What would have happened if a Labour MP had stumbled into a room with Paxman or Humphrys or Snow? Bloodbath.

[BrutusTheBear]

You auditioning for the role of Malcom Tucker WH?

[andy popp]

A good leader that has bad consquences for the less wealthy? Hmmmmmm.  That would be the definition of poor leadership for me. 

Effective leadership (effective is a much more meaningful measure of leadership than 'goodness') can only be defined in terms of its ability to achieve its own stated aims. In this sense, the verdict has to be out on May for now - though calling the GE does promise to prove effective. Thatcher, on the other hand, and no matter how much I despised and opposed her aims (and means), has to judged a highly effective leader for the vast majority of her political career. The question has to be, can Corbyn achieve his stated aims using the leadership tools at his disposal? Like many people, I do not believe so. This is a judgement not on his aims but on his leadership.

[BrutusTheBear]

Half are traditionalists, genuine "conservatives", shading into downright Nazi's. Not every Tory is a wanker and plenty of Trots and hyper-holy Greens are of equal wanker status to those on the far right).

See my facebook post: I think (on a brief glance) if i still lived in NA I'd probably vote Tory. The sitting MP grills Hunt all the time about the NHS. Which is a lot more than Corbyn does.

  NA?

[seankenny]

Didn't the whole media conspiracy thing originate from the CIA as a tool to discredit anyone asking questions about Kennedy's assassination?  (Point is, it's not an argument it's a method of 'brushing off'.)

A good leader that has bad consquences for the less wealthy? Hmmmmmm.  That would be the definition of poor leadership for me. 

Corbyn a good leader that could lead this Country effectively? 

Of course what anyone might determine to be the qualities of a good leader maybe completely different.  Should he be elected as PM we will find out won't we.  I like the fact he is principled, I like the fact that he has been calling the media out recently (you won't see that footage much on the BBC), I like that fact that he has had the strength to stand strong against the all the sniping and back stabbing, I like his beard and jam making, I love that he is not owned by anyone, I love that he is willing to stand up for others.  All qualities of what I would call a good leader.  Maybe the question should be will Corbyn be allowed to be a good leader because I can't foresee the sniping stopping.

Principled? The guy tolerates anti semites and took money off the Iranian state broadcaster after they'd been banned from broadcasting in the U.K. thanks to their involvement in torture. Chuck in the shitty treatment of female MPs on his watch and his attempt to force through mandatory reelection (you're supposed to be fighting the Tories  Jeremy, not your so-called own side), and he looks more like a shifty lying toad than a man of integrity.

[andy popp]

OK, so for an exemplar of leadership. Jeremy Corbyn is haunted by a widespread belief that he is actually pro-Brexit and that anything he says to the contrary is some kind of dissembling or gaming. It may or may not be true but the point is that he has utterly failed to counteract it. The net result; he isn't trusted. Here's the exemplar - https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/apr/20/how-marine-le-pen-played-the-media - Marine Le Pen. She's much more likely to achieve her aims than Corbyn. It may be abhorrent, but its leadership.

I'm actually much more worried about France than Britain.

[monkoffunk]

I have lots of issues with Corbyn. For all the new politics chat, his policies haven't been very different from Ed Millibands, and all sorts of problems he has failed to address as stated by others here. 

The bigger issue here is that even if Corbyn was going to be the greatest prime minister ever and his image is purely a result of the media campaign against him, it doesn't make any difference. He has still lost the war of words and he won't be winning the election regardless of how unjust some people may feel that is. 

So who is playing games here? Corbyn is happy to let the Labour Party be absolutely crushed for a point of principle and deluded pride? That's what's going to effect real people who actually need the Labour Party in power. Are these the actions of an honerable man? He should have taken the moral high ground and accepted that he was never going to be the vehicle for change he wanted to be.

[Oldmanmatt]

Half are traditionalists, genuine "conservatives", shading into downright Nazi's. Not every Tory is a wanker and plenty of Trots and hyper-holy Greens are of equal wanker status to those on the far right).

See my facebook post: I think (on a brief glance) if i still lived in NA I'd probably vote Tory. The sitting MP grills Hunt all the time about the NHS. Which is a lot more than Corbyn does.

  NA?

Newton Abbot.

Or as it's more commonly known locally, Newt Town Scabbot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk