This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Looks to me like the end of Jeremy Corbyn. Which is absolutely fair enough, he's a terrible, ineffective politician.
The hypocrisy and dishonesty exposed is very, very embarrassing. And what absolute bollocks from McDonnel about the "hard right"! I don't think it's tenable for this to continue and I hope this is the start of some big changes in opposition/centre-left politics - I'd love to see it all shaken up.
What's going to happen next?
The hypocrisy and dishonesty exposed is very, very embarrassing. And what absolute bollocks from McDonnel about the "hard right"! I don't think it's tenable for this to continue and I hope this is the start of some big changes in opposition/centre-left politics - I'd love to see it all shaken up.
What's going to happen next?
13
16
In reply to Jon Stewart:
3 junior shadow ministers resigning in a huff is hardly an 'omnishambles'. What happens next? My money is on pretty much what happened before once the dust settles and the press move their focus on to the next celebrity come bake with me special.
jk
3 junior shadow ministers resigning in a huff is hardly an 'omnishambles'. What happens next? My money is on pretty much what happened before once the dust settles and the press move their focus on to the next celebrity come bake with me special.
jk
9
In reply to Jon Stewart:
His political acumen doesn't seem very high (to me) when his reshuffling takes headline attention away from things like Cameron giving his MPs the ability to campaign against staying in the EU.
His political acumen doesn't seem very high (to me) when his reshuffling takes headline attention away from things like Cameron giving his MPs the ability to campaign against staying in the EU.
Post edited at 19:29
1
In reply to jkarran:
You might be right, but I hope not!
Have we seen all the resignations yet? What about all the briefing against and blatantly lying to the media about being delighted with new dream jobs, in a context of the new transparent, kinder politics. It's not good at all.
> 3 junior shadow ministers resigning in a huff is hardly an 'omnishambles'. What happens next? My money is on pretty much what happened before once the dust settles and the press move their focus on to the next celebrity come bake with me special.
You might be right, but I hope not!
Have we seen all the resignations yet? What about all the briefing against and blatantly lying to the media about being delighted with new dream jobs, in a context of the new transparent, kinder politics. It's not good at all.
2
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Never mind Corbyn's political failings; we have a PM who seems to think himself fabulous because he can string a few, shit, Shakespeare puns together in Parliament... Strange days indeed.
Never mind Corbyn's political failings; we have a PM who seems to think himself fabulous because he can string a few, shit, Shakespeare puns together in Parliament... Strange days indeed.
15
5
In reply to Jon Stewart:
The focus on the internecine war with Hilary Benn took the spotlight off the dissatisfaction of other MPs with Corbyn's "leadership".
The focus on the internecine war with Hilary Benn took the spotlight off the dissatisfaction of other MPs with Corbyn's "leadership".
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:
The whole thing is laughable.
Labour is self-destructing.And the Conservatives are pissing themselves.
Just heard Ken Livingstone justifying one of the sackings.(McFadden, I think).
Ken and Co. seem to be under the impression that Communism is the way ahead for this country, and what every Labour voter secretly wants.
Makes Politics a bit more entertaining.The Pantomime is going to last all year.
The whole thing is laughable.
Labour is self-destructing.And the Conservatives are pissing themselves.
Just heard Ken Livingstone justifying one of the sackings.(McFadden, I think).
Ken and Co. seem to be under the impression that Communism is the way ahead for this country, and what every Labour voter secretly wants.
Makes Politics a bit more entertaining.The Pantomime is going to last all year.
Post edited at 20:30
7
9
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:
I agree, although it makes an interesting counterfactual to the common complaints about Blair and Cameron that they are 'managerial' and don't really believe in anything. Seems you're damned as an ineffectual idealist and you're damned as a cynical political schemer - surely there must be a third way?
> Looks to me like the end of Jeremy Corbyn. Which is absolutely fair enough, he's a terrible, ineffective politician.
I agree, although it makes an interesting counterfactual to the common complaints about Blair and Cameron that they are 'managerial' and don't really believe in anything. Seems you're damned as an ineffectual idealist and you're damned as a cynical political schemer - surely there must be a third way?
8
2
In reply to Dave Garnett:
Well of course there is, but it seems to be a human trait to swing the pendulum across to the other side rather than into the middle.
Well of course there is, but it seems to be a human trait to swing the pendulum across to the other side rather than into the middle.
2
In reply to Clauso:
Gimme your best Shakespearean pun!
Mine is "Now is the winter of our discount tents".
> Never mind Corbyn's political failings; we have a PM who seems to think himself fabulous because he can string a few, shit, Shakespeare puns together in Parliament... Strange days indeed.
Gimme your best Shakespearean pun!
Mine is "Now is the winter of our discount tents".
6
In reply to JJL:
I liked that. The chief of the Briton village (One last village still holds out against the Romans....) that Asterix and Obelix visit in Asterix in Britain is called Mykingdomforanos. In fact, never mind Shakespeare, for a riot of puns, just go through the character names in Asterix. I grew up on this. See http://www.asterix.com/the-a-to-z-of-asterix/characters/
Ave Marcus Ginantonicus!
I liked that. The chief of the Briton village (One last village still holds out against the Romans....) that Asterix and Obelix visit in Asterix in Britain is called Mykingdomforanos. In fact, never mind Shakespeare, for a riot of puns, just go through the character names in Asterix. I grew up on this. See http://www.asterix.com/the-a-to-z-of-asterix/characters/
Ave Marcus Ginantonicus!
2
In reply to Clauso:
I think this is one of the reasons the Tories will do quite well. As soon as someone points out the political failings of Labour, all the Labour supporters have to offer is personal insults. "Look over there Cameron is an arse, quick, nothing to see here..."
> Never mind Corbyn's political failings; we have a PM who seems to think himself fabulous because he can string a few, shit, Shakespeare puns together in Parliament... Strange days indeed.
I think this is one of the reasons the Tories will do quite well. As soon as someone points out the political failings of Labour, all the Labour supporters have to offer is personal insults. "Look over there Cameron is an arse, quick, nothing to see here..."
Post edited at 21:29
5
5
In reply to JJL:
"Infamy, infamy - they've all got it in for me" - Julius Caesar played by Kenneth Williams
> Gimme your best Shakespearean pun!
> Mine is "Now is the winter of our discount tents".
"Infamy, infamy - they've all got it in for me" - Julius Caesar played by Kenneth Williams
2
In reply to Big Ger:
I'm not even sure you get the irony of your post....quality!
> I think this is one of the reasons the Tories will do quite well. As soon as someone points out the political failings of Labour, all the Labour supporters have to offer is personal insults. "Look over there Cameron is an arse, quick, nothing to see here..."
I'm not even sure you get the irony of your post....quality!
8
3
In reply to Jon Stewart:
I thought you were a supporter, at least initially? Personally I thought he was a disaster from the beginning. He is totally out of his depth and his politics are not fit for the challenges Britain faces. Unfortunately he was bound to win because of the uselessness of Burnham and Cooper, and the total resistance of the party to stomach/listen to Kendall. The party was doomed from the moment it chose the wrong brother... and the roots of the current malaise go deeper of course.
Totally. But that's the hard left for you. Dishonest, malicious, small minded, undemocratic. McDonnell is a cretin, as are most of the other people around Corbyn.
It won't change for the better. He's secure with his 152,000 mandate. 'Blairites'/moderates can't do anything because despite being right they face a vicious backlash from the Momentum idiots. What shocks me most is his appeal to sensible, well educated middle class people who seem to (bearing in mind they are losing their core support in the traditional working class) be flocking back to the LP and supporting him despite the obvious fact his presence and politics are electoral suicide.
What we don't need is some sort of resurgent campaigning left - we need a competent, coherent, principled and policy-rich social democratic alternative to an otherwise hegemonic radical conservative gov.
So, depressingly, I see him staying on to the next election and Labour slumping to fewer than 150 MPs.
> Looks to me like the end of Jeremy Corbyn. Which is absolutely fair enough, he's a terrible, ineffective politician.
I thought you were a supporter, at least initially? Personally I thought he was a disaster from the beginning. He is totally out of his depth and his politics are not fit for the challenges Britain faces. Unfortunately he was bound to win because of the uselessness of Burnham and Cooper, and the total resistance of the party to stomach/listen to Kendall. The party was doomed from the moment it chose the wrong brother... and the roots of the current malaise go deeper of course.
> The hypocrisy and dishonesty exposed is very, very embarrassing. And what absolute bollocks from McDonnel about the "hard right"! I don't think it's tenable for this to continue and I hope this is the start of some big changes in opposition/centre-left politics - I'd love to see it all shaken up.
Totally. But that's the hard left for you. Dishonest, malicious, small minded, undemocratic. McDonnell is a cretin, as are most of the other people around Corbyn.
> What's going to happen next?
It won't change for the better. He's secure with his 152,000 mandate. 'Blairites'/moderates can't do anything because despite being right they face a vicious backlash from the Momentum idiots. What shocks me most is his appeal to sensible, well educated middle class people who seem to (bearing in mind they are losing their core support in the traditional working class) be flocking back to the LP and supporting him despite the obvious fact his presence and politics are electoral suicide.
What we don't need is some sort of resurgent campaigning left - we need a competent, coherent, principled and policy-rich social democratic alternative to an otherwise hegemonic radical conservative gov.
So, depressingly, I see him staying on to the next election and Labour slumping to fewer than 150 MPs.
7
3
In reply to abr1966:
No irony at all, please clarify for me what you see as the "irony".
Irony: noun, plural ironies.
1. the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning:
> I'm not even sure you get the irony of your post....quality!
No irony at all, please clarify for me what you see as the "irony".
Irony: noun, plural ironies.
1. the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning:
2
4
In reply to Jon Stewart:
>
I'm not sure what the fuss is about. He's belatedly understood that the "new democratic politics" doesn't work (who'd have thought?!) and his minders eg.Milne and McDonnell (who are are about as democratic as Attila the Hun) have persuaded him that he has enough party support to create a cabinet of supporters (which, lets face it, is what most party leaders do)
Do we really think the PLP has enough balls to leave the party??
Next stage: deselection.......
> Looks to me like the end of Jeremy Corbyn. Which is absolutely fair enough, he's a terrible, ineffective politician.
> The hypocrisy and dishonesty exposed is very, very embarrassing. And what absolute bollocks from McDonnel about the "hard right"! I don't think it's tenable for this to continue and I hope this is the start of some big changes in opposition/centre-left politics - I'd love to see it all shaken up.
>
I'm not sure what the fuss is about. He's belatedly understood that the "new democratic politics" doesn't work (who'd have thought?!) and his minders eg.Milne and McDonnell (who are are about as democratic as Attila the Hun) have persuaded him that he has enough party support to create a cabinet of supporters (which, lets face it, is what most party leaders do)
Do we really think the PLP has enough balls to leave the party??
Next stage: deselection.......
Post edited at 22:23
1
1
In reply to Big Ger:
How about reviewing your posts over the past week or so as a starter....then think about the 'irony' of your post here.
How about reviewing your posts over the past week or so as a starter....then think about the 'irony' of your post here.
2
1
1
In reply to JJL:
If you like Shakespearean characters you should see my Bottom.
> Gimme your best Shakespearean pun!
If you like Shakespearean characters you should see my Bottom.
2
In reply to Jon Stewart:
The implosion of the Labour party is secondary to the further disfranchisement of big swathe of electorate who briefly were enthused by the potential of politics and thought that an actual human being could make a difference to the political machine. Of course Corbyn is an ineffective 'politician'. Even his most fervant supporters would acknowledge that. That's exactly why he was elected.
The complete ignorance of his significant mandate along with the leaking and briefing against Corbyn is the real embarrassment to the party. Along with the mainstream press spinning and attacking everything he does what chance has he got?
Besides, resignations of the nobodies who were likely the leaky sources is hardly a disaster.
The implosion of the Labour party is secondary to the further disfranchisement of big swathe of electorate who briefly were enthused by the potential of politics and thought that an actual human being could make a difference to the political machine. Of course Corbyn is an ineffective 'politician'. Even his most fervant supporters would acknowledge that. That's exactly why he was elected.
The complete ignorance of his significant mandate along with the leaking and briefing against Corbyn is the real embarrassment to the party. Along with the mainstream press spinning and attacking everything he does what chance has he got?
Besides, resignations of the nobodies who were likely the leaky sources is hardly a disaster.
14
2
In reply to Dave Garnett:
I'd crawl over hot coals for a party that just showed some honesty and some competence right now.
> Seems you're damned as an ineffectual idealist and you're damned as a cynical political schemer - surely there must be a third way?
I'd crawl over hot coals for a party that just showed some honesty and some competence right now.
2
1
In reply to Stig:
He's a proponent of several policies that I agree with and I consider important which laughably are now considered "hard left" rather than obvious and sensible, e.g. scrapping trident, not going into wars that have shady motives and do more harm than good (and this is certainly not just Iraq, it's now part of the furniture in centre-ground politics), renationalising the natural monopolies (where installing fake markets leads inevitably to a national rip-off), actually opposing the welfare reforms, ending sycophancy towards destructive regimes e.g. Israel, etc. I agree with where he stands on many issues, but not all. I had no confidence that he could ever convince anyone that matters on these issues though. And I'm agnostic on whether it's better to have no voice at all and take the sting out of the right a bit with a Tory-lite govt, or whether I'd rather have a political system which had a deeper reach than just marketing very similar brands. I certainly didn't pay 3 quid and vote for the f*cker!
As I say above, he holds views that people actually believe in, rather than resigning themselves to as some kind of justifiable betrayal of everything they stand for (it was a lovely offer from Liz Kendall really, it just happened to make me puke on my shoes).
I don't see that anywhere in the Labour Party. That's why I want to see a total re-organisation of everyone who's not Tory/UKIP/BNP.
Eughh.
> I thought you were a supporter, at least initially? Personally I thought he was a disaster from the beginning
He's a proponent of several policies that I agree with and I consider important which laughably are now considered "hard left" rather than obvious and sensible, e.g. scrapping trident, not going into wars that have shady motives and do more harm than good (and this is certainly not just Iraq, it's now part of the furniture in centre-ground politics), renationalising the natural monopolies (where installing fake markets leads inevitably to a national rip-off), actually opposing the welfare reforms, ending sycophancy towards destructive regimes e.g. Israel, etc. I agree with where he stands on many issues, but not all. I had no confidence that he could ever convince anyone that matters on these issues though. And I'm agnostic on whether it's better to have no voice at all and take the sting out of the right a bit with a Tory-lite govt, or whether I'd rather have a political system which had a deeper reach than just marketing very similar brands. I certainly didn't pay 3 quid and vote for the f*cker!
> It won't change for the better. He's secure with his 152,000 mandate. 'Blairites'/moderates can't do anything because despite being right they face a vicious backlash from the Momentum idiots. What shocks me most is his appeal to sensible, well educated middle class people who seem to (bearing in mind they are losing their core support in the traditional working class) be flocking back to the LP and supporting him despite the obvious fact his presence and politics are electoral suicide.
As I say above, he holds views that people actually believe in, rather than resigning themselves to as some kind of justifiable betrayal of everything they stand for (it was a lovely offer from Liz Kendall really, it just happened to make me puke on my shoes).
> What we don't need is some sort of resurgent campaigning left - we need a competent, coherent, principled and policy-rich social democratic alternative to an otherwise hegemonic radical conservative gov.
I don't see that anywhere in the Labour Party. That's why I want to see a total re-organisation of everyone who's not Tory/UKIP/BNP.
> So, depressingly, I see him staying on to the next election and Labour slumping to fewer than 150 MPs.
Eughh.
9
2
In reply to Postmanpat:
He's not in a strong enough position to create a cabinet of supporters - e.g. e couldn't sack Benn, but didn't even manage not to sack him without making a disgrace of the matter (Benn: "err, no, I never agreed to shut my mouth you tw*t"). If it was as you said, it would be something other than just a shambles!
Fair point. But this implosion has to somewhere...
> I'm not sure what the fuss is about. He's belatedly understood that the "new democratic politics" doesn't work (who'd have thought?!) and his minders eg.Milne and McDonnell (who are are about as democratic as Attila the Hun) have persuaded him that he has enough party support to create a cabinet of supporters (which, lets face it, is what most party leaders do)
He's not in a strong enough position to create a cabinet of supporters - e.g. e couldn't sack Benn, but didn't even manage not to sack him without making a disgrace of the matter (Benn: "err, no, I never agreed to shut my mouth you tw*t"). If it was as you said, it would be something other than just a shambles!
> Do we really think the PLP has enough balls to leave the party??
Fair point. But this implosion has to somewhere...
4
1
In reply to NorthernGrit:
I agree....I find the whole thing depressing and disenfranchising.
It's not a good analogy but, when I first became a team manager I genuinely thought people would use an open culture which I firmly believed in, sadly most did but a few vocal others chose not too and became a real problem for the majority. I suspect Corbyn has a similar issue on a different scale.
The schism between the parliamentary labour party and the general membership needs careful consideration and reflection to resolve..... I'm doubtful that Corbyn can do this as his approach of 'consensus' politics will sadly not be weighty enough to counter the nouveau nature of the pRliamentary party..
I agree....I find the whole thing depressing and disenfranchising.
It's not a good analogy but, when I first became a team manager I genuinely thought people would use an open culture which I firmly believed in, sadly most did but a few vocal others chose not too and became a real problem for the majority. I suspect Corbyn has a similar issue on a different scale.
The schism between the parliamentary labour party and the general membership needs careful consideration and reflection to resolve..... I'm doubtful that Corbyn can do this as his approach of 'consensus' politics will sadly not be weighty enough to counter the nouveau nature of the pRliamentary party..
2
In reply to NorthernGrit:
I voted Corbyn not because he was my ideal candidate, but because change was necessary and I didn't see how any of the other three candidates could offer anything but the same as what came before.
He's neither lived up to my hopes, nor been as disastrous as everyone seems to think. He's been largely ineffective at countering Tory austerity policy (helped by Labour's infighting deflecting attention from everything else). On the other hand, his policies weren't nearly as wacky as everyone seems to think (even The Telegraph conceded this in the one article I found that actually discussed his policies, which I probably won't be able to find again because their web design is terrible). He's reminded MPs of all colours that they're ultimately supposed to be accountable to their constituents. Many of the media frenzies over issues (the Oldham by-election, this shadow cabinet reshuffle etc) were just storms in teacups. He's voted as I hoped on the major issues (even if ultimately those votes were lost). He's held up a mirror to Cameron that shows for all who care to see just what a nasty, self-serving, arrogant little man he is.
In my opinion his biggest failures were appointing Milne, Abbot and McDonnel into high-ranking positions.
He's been between a rock and a hard place from the start, as I think everyone knew he would be. And it probably won't end prettily, or bring about any positive lasting change, but it was still worth a shot.
I'm 26, highly educated, generally positive, ambitious and utterly disenfranchised with politics. The sad thing is how polarised things have become. I never held 'far-left' views but in disagreeing with the core of the Labour party, and being repulsed by the level of reporting, I've been forced into that camp anyway.
I voted Corbyn not because he was my ideal candidate, but because change was necessary and I didn't see how any of the other three candidates could offer anything but the same as what came before.
He's neither lived up to my hopes, nor been as disastrous as everyone seems to think. He's been largely ineffective at countering Tory austerity policy (helped by Labour's infighting deflecting attention from everything else). On the other hand, his policies weren't nearly as wacky as everyone seems to think (even The Telegraph conceded this in the one article I found that actually discussed his policies, which I probably won't be able to find again because their web design is terrible). He's reminded MPs of all colours that they're ultimately supposed to be accountable to their constituents. Many of the media frenzies over issues (the Oldham by-election, this shadow cabinet reshuffle etc) were just storms in teacups. He's voted as I hoped on the major issues (even if ultimately those votes were lost). He's held up a mirror to Cameron that shows for all who care to see just what a nasty, self-serving, arrogant little man he is.
In my opinion his biggest failures were appointing Milne, Abbot and McDonnel into high-ranking positions.
He's been between a rock and a hard place from the start, as I think everyone knew he would be. And it probably won't end prettily, or bring about any positive lasting change, but it was still worth a shot.
I'm 26, highly educated, generally positive, ambitious and utterly disenfranchised with politics. The sad thing is how polarised things have become. I never held 'far-left' views but in disagreeing with the core of the Labour party, and being repulsed by the level of reporting, I've been forced into that camp anyway.
Post edited at 23:34
5
2
In reply to Jon Stewart:
I hope you are wrong, because I predicted on here that he would last all of 2 years, I hate being that wrong.
Not over till the fat lady sings.........
I hope you are wrong, because I predicted on here that he would last all of 2 years, I hate being that wrong.
Not over till the fat lady sings.........
In reply to Trevers:
I generally agree with a number of those on here who offer some support for JC.
What has been an eye opener for me and I admit to serious naievity in this, is how many of ur rely on the media for our political compass. In that context it is apparent that JC's approach is open to exploitation by the right wing press and equally invites criticism from the more liberal media as he refuses to play the game by the rules that they have become accustomed to.
As an aside, I believe the BBC's Laura Keunsberg's patently anti Corbyn "analysis" is an afront to objective journalsism.
I generally agree with a number of those on here who offer some support for JC.
What has been an eye opener for me and I admit to serious naievity in this, is how many of ur rely on the media for our political compass. In that context it is apparent that JC's approach is open to exploitation by the right wing press and equally invites criticism from the more liberal media as he refuses to play the game by the rules that they have become accustomed to.
As an aside, I believe the BBC's Laura Keunsberg's patently anti Corbyn "analysis" is an afront to objective journalsism.
7
4
2
3
In reply to Mike Conlon:
It's also been fairly eye-opening watching the way the press has worked to tear him apart, because the timescale has been so short from when he first appeared to be gaining support to him becoming leader to now.
It's also been fairly eye-opening watching the way the press has worked to tear him apart, because the timescale has been so short from when he first appeared to be gaining support to him becoming leader to now.
3
1
In reply to Big Ger:
Shut it, big nose.
... I'd get a knighthood, for that, if my name was Lyndon Crossknee.
Shut it, big nose.
... I'd get a knighthood, for that, if my name was Lyndon Crossknee.
1
In reply to Trevers:
How can it be claimed that he has reminded MPs that they are accountable to their constituents when ge is apparently expecting them to tie a party line that has been set by himself?
> He's reminded MPs of all colours that they're ultimately supposed to be accountable to their constituents.
How can it be claimed that he has reminded MPs that they are accountable to their constituents when ge is apparently expecting them to tie a party line that has been set by himself?
4
In reply to timjones:
Would totally agree, they voted for a man who as labour leader ate (or at least tried) bacon sandwiches.
Labour has moved far away from bacon now. They won't be appealing to the masses especially as black pudding is now a super food.
> How can it be claimed that he has reminded MPs that they are accountable to their constituents when ge is apparently expecting them to tie a party line that has been set by himself?
Would totally agree, they voted for a man who as labour leader ate (or at least tried) bacon sandwiches.
Labour has moved far away from bacon now. They won't be appealing to the masses especially as black pudding is now a super food.
In reply to Mike Conlon:
Oi, don't knock the divine Laura. She can do no wrong
> As an aside, I believe the BBC's Laura Keunsberg's patently anti Corbyn "analysis" is an afront to objective journalsism.
Oi, don't knock the divine Laura. She can do no wrong
1
3
In reply to Trevers:
That's me too almost word for word except I'm a decade older and I suspect rather too jaded to describe myself as positive.
I'm still in the 'give him time' group.
jk
> I voted Corbyn not because he was my ideal candidate, but because change was necessary ...
That's me too almost word for word except I'm a decade older and I suspect rather too jaded to describe myself as positive.
I'm still in the 'give him time' group.
jk
3
1
In reply to jkarran:
I'm thinking less 'give him time', more 'give him a fresh slate, a broadly cooperative party and an unbiased media'. No, I'm not holding my breath.
> I'm still in the 'give him time' group.
I'm thinking less 'give him time', more 'give him a fresh slate, a broadly cooperative party and an unbiased media'. No, I'm not holding my breath.
6
1
In reply to timjones:
His PMQs tactic of sourcing questions from the public. I'm also well-aware that this tactic is also a means of asserting his mandate.
> How can it be claimed that he has reminded MPs that they are accountable to their constituents when ge is apparently expecting them to tie a party line that has been set by himself?
His PMQs tactic of sourcing questions from the public. I'm also well-aware that this tactic is also a means of asserting his mandate.
1
In reply to jkarran:
I'm still in the 'give him time' group.
More time?
He's been an MP for over 30 years, surely he should be politically astute by now?
I'm still in the 'give him time' group.
More time?
He's been an MP for over 30 years, surely he should be politically astute by now?
2
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Jezwecan said he is and will remain an activist. Activists chose their battles, dress-up defeat and victory and ultimately blame the Daily Mail before moving on to the next cause. Leaders (try to) deal with events that befall them.
I think Seamus, Jezwecan, It'sawig! et al might have developed a sneaking respect for the media savvy managerial new labour clones in the last week.
Jezwecan said he is and will remain an activist. Activists chose their battles, dress-up defeat and victory and ultimately blame the Daily Mail before moving on to the next cause. Leaders (try to) deal with events that befall them.
I think Seamus, Jezwecan, It'sawig! et al might have developed a sneaking respect for the media savvy managerial new labour clones in the last week.
2
1
In reply to afghanidan:
Don't the Tories dress up defeat too (constitutional crisis etc.)?
> Jezwecan said he is and will remain an activist. Activists chose their battles, dress-up defeat and victory and ultimately blame the Daily Mail before moving on to the next cause. Leaders (try to) deal with events that befall them.
Don't the Tories dress up defeat too (constitutional crisis etc.)?
2
2
In reply to Trevers:
Personally I think the way the other politicians have reacted to him is on a completely different level to any other leader of a political party I've seen. Take Cameron's slur on Jeremey being a terrorist sympathiser and when he mis-quoted Jeremy saying Osama Bin Laden's death being 'a tragedy'.
The media are also reacting quite unusually to him IMO.
It all points to how sewn up the existing system is to me. Labour was ok when they were basically conservatives anyway and wanted to keep the status quo with how the press operate and how seats tend to be divided up giving job security to politicians etc. Now we have someone different at the top of the labour party they really don't like it.
Personally I don't really like the way modern British society has gone, its been gradually modified to be far more beneficial for rich powerful people and companies than the average Joe. I'd love to see someone actually try and address this.
I for one was disgusted with how many of the right wing papers tried to sway votes away from labour just before the last election, there was something very wrong with the way they did that IMO.
Personally I think the way the other politicians have reacted to him is on a completely different level to any other leader of a political party I've seen. Take Cameron's slur on Jeremey being a terrorist sympathiser and when he mis-quoted Jeremy saying Osama Bin Laden's death being 'a tragedy'.
The media are also reacting quite unusually to him IMO.
It all points to how sewn up the existing system is to me. Labour was ok when they were basically conservatives anyway and wanted to keep the status quo with how the press operate and how seats tend to be divided up giving job security to politicians etc. Now we have someone different at the top of the labour party they really don't like it.
Personally I don't really like the way modern British society has gone, its been gradually modified to be far more beneficial for rich powerful people and companies than the average Joe. I'd love to see someone actually try and address this.
I for one was disgusted with how many of the right wing papers tried to sway votes away from labour just before the last election, there was something very wrong with the way they did that IMO.
Post edited at 14:23
7
2
In reply to CurlyStevo:
It amuses me that the Marxist BBC political editor Laura Keunssberg appears to spend all her time denigrating Corbyn. I mean, it's not like there are any other pressing political issues to occupy her is it ?
It amuses me that the Marxist BBC political editor Laura Keunssberg appears to spend all her time denigrating Corbyn. I mean, it's not like there are any other pressing political issues to occupy her is it ?
3
1
In reply to Trevers:
Too right. No support, endorsement or solidarity with the Tory party was intended by my comments.
Too right. No support, endorsement or solidarity with the Tory party was intended by my comments.
1
1
In reply to afghanidan:
That's a rather nihilistic view of leadership. As well as reacting to events, we should expect our political leaders to actively shape both the agenda, and the future, in a positive (*) way.
(* Whether or not you believe any particular elected brand of politicians might be acting 'positively' of course depends on your own political views - but, that's democracy.)
> ... Leaders (try to) deal with events that befall them.
That's a rather nihilistic view of leadership. As well as reacting to events, we should expect our political leaders to actively shape both the agenda, and the future, in a positive (*) way.
(* Whether or not you believe any particular elected brand of politicians might be acting 'positively' of course depends on your own political views - but, that's democracy.)
1
In reply to lummox:
Amazing isn't she, crawled right up out of Cameron's arse. Didn't think you could get a worse (biased, ineffectual stenography) political editor than Robinson, but the BBC turned into SKY news with an identikit hatchet faced blonde, who's remit it seems to create news.
D
Amazing isn't she, crawled right up out of Cameron's arse. Didn't think you could get a worse (biased, ineffectual stenography) political editor than Robinson, but the BBC turned into SKY news with an identikit hatchet faced blonde, who's remit it seems to create news.
D
2
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Hard to disagree with any of that. The way I (perhaps optimistically) see it is that Corbyn will win nothing, but he may lay the foundations for a future socialist government by normalising discussion of such policies and making them part of the political discourse. Hope springs eternal!
Hard to disagree with any of that. The way I (perhaps optimistically) see it is that Corbyn will win nothing, but he may lay the foundations for a future socialist government by normalising discussion of such policies and making them part of the political discourse. Hope springs eternal!
1
In reply to Dauphin:
Robinson actually had the good grace and balance to disapprove of the crap that Corbyn has faced in the media. It makes me chuckle when the swivel eyed loons like Simon4 refer to the BBC as Marxist.
Robinson actually had the good grace and balance to disapprove of the crap that Corbyn has faced in the media. It makes me chuckle when the swivel eyed loons like Simon4 refer to the BBC as Marxist.
4
2
In reply to lummox:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/stephen-doughty-labour-mps-je...
It's actually quite depressing how the BBC's direction seems to be going. R4 Today used to be my start of the day. Now the radio doesn't get switched on until 9am.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/stephen-doughty-labour-mps-je...
It's actually quite depressing how the BBC's direction seems to be going. R4 Today used to be my start of the day. Now the radio doesn't get switched on until 9am.
2
In reply to Trevers:
But that is no more than idle talk if he then expects laobour MPs to vote with him rather than their constituents.
> His PMQs tactic of sourcing questions from the public. I'm also well-aware that this tactic is also a means of asserting his mandate.
But that is no more than idle talk if he then expects laobour MPs to vote with him rather than their constituents.
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:
I think Corbyn is the final nail in the coffin of 1970's socialism and unionism in the UK. I hope for a more centralist party, not necessarily Labour, who will cherry pick the best of old Labour and Thatcherite conservatism.
I think Corbyn is the final nail in the coffin of 1970's socialism and unionism in the UK. I hope for a more centralist party, not necessarily Labour, who will cherry pick the best of old Labour and Thatcherite conservatism.
3
In reply to Stuart (aka brt):
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/stephen-doughty-labour-mps-je...
What a bitch.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/stephen-doughty-labour-mps-je...
What a bitch.
In reply to NorthernGrit:
But he just keeps feeding them ammunition, his lack of ability to understand how the media works after 30 years as an MP is staggering. At this level the media don't give you chances, you make your own, its about the difference between being a potential world leader and a sixth form debating society chairman.
> . . . Along with the mainstream press spinning and attacking everything he does what chance has he got? >
But he just keeps feeding them ammunition, his lack of ability to understand how the media works after 30 years as an MP is staggering. At this level the media don't give you chances, you make your own, its about the difference between being a potential world leader and a sixth form debating society chairman.
4
In reply to Trevers:
Why does he deserve a fresh start and an unbiased media? Nobody else gets one.
In reply to CurlyStevo:
What the hell do you expect right wing papers to do? Surely its the job of left wing papers to do the opposite.
The naivety of some people about how the media works is only matched by Corbyn's political naivety, perhaps that's why you like him?
> I'm thinking less 'give him time', more 'give him a fresh slate, a broadly cooperative party and an unbiased media'.... >
Why does he deserve a fresh start and an unbiased media? Nobody else gets one.
In reply to CurlyStevo:
> I for one was disgusted with how many of the right wing papers tried to sway votes away from labour just before the last election, >
What the hell do you expect right wing papers to do? Surely its the job of left wing papers to do the opposite.
The naivety of some people about how the media works is only matched by Corbyn's political naivety, perhaps that's why you like him?
3
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Interesting blog, mainly because it echoes my own views about the BBC, its remit and the BBC trust. Shut it down indeed.
https://markdoran.wordpress.com/2016/01/08/close-it-down-2/
D
Interesting blog, mainly because it echoes my own views about the BBC, its remit and the BBC trust. Shut it down indeed.
https://markdoran.wordpress.com/2016/01/08/close-it-down-2/
D
In reply to Dauphin:
Interesting blog, mainly because it echoes my own views about the BBC, its remit and the BBC trust. Shut it down indeed.
You find a blog that agrees with your own views interesting. Well, that's a surprise...
Interesting blog, mainly because it echoes my own views about the BBC, its remit and the BBC trust. Shut it down indeed.
You find a blog that agrees with your own views interesting. Well, that's a surprise...
1
1
In reply to Dauphin:
The humour was implied.
So, you don't agree with the content of the blog and your post and link was ironic/sarcastic?
The humour was implied.
So, you don't agree with the content of the blog and your post and link was ironic/sarcastic?
1
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Yeah, what a bitch. Any other media outlet would have taken the moral high ground and turned down the chance of an on air resignation.
Yeah, what a bitch. Any other media outlet would have taken the moral high ground and turned down the chance of an on air resignation.
1
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Looks like Alison McGovern has the hump as well.
Wonder what will happen next week?
Looks like Alison McGovern has the hump as well.
Wonder what will happen next week?
In reply to Jon Stewart: I agree that he's a terrible politician. However, there is a world of difference between being a politician and a statesman. He has manners, principles and simple human decency. He is less concerned for his own career and reputation than he is for the good of the nation. Therein lies the difference - terrible politician, good statesman. He looks so out of his depth because of the lying, scheming, duplicitous scumbags who surround him in UK politics. If he is still leader at the next election I'll vote Labour for the first time in my life.
If you hate Corbyn this much you must absolutely detest Cameron. Who do you rate in UK politics?
If you hate Corbyn this much you must absolutely detest Cameron. Who do you rate in UK politics?
2
In reply to Frank the Husky:
Paddy Ashdown.
I don't hate Corbyn, I agree with a lot of his policies and think he's probably a nice bloke. I find it sad that the reshuffle exposed all the lying and bitching, and I don't hold him personally responsible for that. He's a bit of an idiot though (that was obvious when he appointed McDonnell) and this makes him a terrible, ineffective politician, who's not up to the job.
> If you hate Corbyn this much you must absolutely detest Cameron. Who do you rate in UK politics?
Paddy Ashdown.
I don't hate Corbyn, I agree with a lot of his policies and think he's probably a nice bloke. I find it sad that the reshuffle exposed all the lying and bitching, and I don't hold him personally responsible for that. He's a bit of an idiot though (that was obvious when he appointed McDonnell) and this makes him a terrible, ineffective politician, who's not up to the job.
1
In reply to Frank the Husky:
He also looks out of depth because of his appalling judgement in his own appointments.
> He looks so out of his depth because of the lying, scheming, duplicitous scumbags who surround him in UK politics.
He also looks out of depth because of his appalling judgement in his own appointments.
1
In reply to Dauphin:
He's just done what seemed to me a perfectly reasonable and friendly interview with Corbyn (who he confirmed he has known for many years and is his MP) on R4.
It's absolutely routine for politicians and activists on both sides of the political divide to complain about the innate bias of the BBC against them. What they really mean is that they like the BBC fulfilling its remit to question and challenge politicians and activists, as long as it's their opponents being questioned and challenged.
If that's your idea of "a state propaganda apparatus disguised as a quasi-autonomous public service broadcasting organisation" (to quote Mark Doran) then I'd still prefer that to the utterly uncritical and openly biased broadcasting that seems to be the alternative in unregulated systems like the US.
> Didn't think you could get a worse (biased, ineffectual stenography) political editor than Robinson,
He's just done what seemed to me a perfectly reasonable and friendly interview with Corbyn (who he confirmed he has known for many years and is his MP) on R4.
It's absolutely routine for politicians and activists on both sides of the political divide to complain about the innate bias of the BBC against them. What they really mean is that they like the BBC fulfilling its remit to question and challenge politicians and activists, as long as it's their opponents being questioned and challenged.
If that's your idea of "a state propaganda apparatus disguised as a quasi-autonomous public service broadcasting organisation" (to quote Mark Doran) then I'd still prefer that to the utterly uncritical and openly biased broadcasting that seems to be the alternative in unregulated systems like the US.
1
1
In reply to Dave Garnett:
C'mon fella, I'm not big fan or either the Labour party or Conservative party but the 'challenging tone' of the interviewing by Kuennsberg since Corbyn got elected as leader of the Labour party is ridiculously one way. If she gave everyone else such a hard time it would be balanced. Maybe she's got some other beef with him, but then her producer would of asked her to turn it down a few notches. Dorans point is the BBC is largely shit at what it does - mediocre dummed down content - and serves interests of the authoritarian ruling class rather than the people who fund it, the charges that its right wing or left wing are wide of these main issues, both which I agree with. Don't compare it with the other dumbed down rubbish to decide if its worth saving.
When Kay Burley supports you as a fellow journalist on twitter time to hand in your press card. One women idiot.
D
C'mon fella, I'm not big fan or either the Labour party or Conservative party but the 'challenging tone' of the interviewing by Kuennsberg since Corbyn got elected as leader of the Labour party is ridiculously one way. If she gave everyone else such a hard time it would be balanced. Maybe she's got some other beef with him, but then her producer would of asked her to turn it down a few notches. Dorans point is the BBC is largely shit at what it does - mediocre dummed down content - and serves interests of the authoritarian ruling class rather than the people who fund it, the charges that its right wing or left wing are wide of these main issues, both which I agree with. Don't compare it with the other dumbed down rubbish to decide if its worth saving.
When Kay Burley supports you as a fellow journalist on twitter time to hand in your press card. One women idiot.
D
In reply to Frank the Husky:
He looks so out of his depth because of the lying, scheming, duplicitous scumbags who surround him in UK politics. If he is still leader at the next election I'll vote Labour for the first time in my life.
>
Corbyn is as lying and duplicitous as the rest of them. Witness his "plausible deniability" abut his support for nasty individuals and causes.
He looks so out of his depth because of the lying, scheming, duplicitous scumbags who surround him in UK politics. If he is still leader at the next election I'll vote Labour for the first time in my life.
>
Corbyn is as lying and duplicitous as the rest of them. Witness his "plausible deniability" abut his support for nasty individuals and causes.
2
In reply to Dauphin:
You or may not have some sort of point about the specific circumstances of Doughty's resignation, which did strike me as a bit tacky (although that's his judgement in the end), but that doesn't make it all a conspiracy of "the state-corporate complex and its agents". Once you start hearing undergraduate political jargon like this you know you've crossed into a parallel universe. What does it even mean? Presumably a state-corporate complex and its agents includes all of us doesn't it?
Anyway, this will be the same state-corporate complex in which John Whittingdale, the Conservative Culture Secretary, seems to be determined to destroy the BBC on account of its ‘nowadays undisguised elite-serving neoliberal bias and transparent anti-left-wing manipulation of the news agenda’, will it?
You or may not have some sort of point about the specific circumstances of Doughty's resignation, which did strike me as a bit tacky (although that's his judgement in the end), but that doesn't make it all a conspiracy of "the state-corporate complex and its agents". Once you start hearing undergraduate political jargon like this you know you've crossed into a parallel universe. What does it even mean? Presumably a state-corporate complex and its agents includes all of us doesn't it?
Anyway, this will be the same state-corporate complex in which John Whittingdale, the Conservative Culture Secretary, seems to be determined to destroy the BBC on account of its ‘nowadays undisguised elite-serving neoliberal bias and transparent anti-left-wing manipulation of the news agenda’, will it?
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Another one gone http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2016/jan/11/jeremy-corbyns-to...
Another one gone http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2016/jan/11/jeremy-corbyns-to...
2
1
In reply to Sir Chasm:
Jeremy Corbyn reminds me of that character in Toy Story - the toys cross a busy road, escaping by the skin of their teeth and causing mayhem, totally unaware of how close they all were to disaster, then the character played by the Cheers drunk remarks, 'Hey that didn't go so badly, did it?'
Jeremy Corbyn reminds me of that character in Toy Story - the toys cross a busy road, escaping by the skin of their teeth and causing mayhem, totally unaware of how close they all were to disaster, then the character played by the Cheers drunk remarks, 'Hey that didn't go so badly, did it?'
1
2
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...