Current Affairs 2017 General Election

[JonS]

The right wing press are going to hammer any labour leader left of Tony Blair. Those of you that are thinking differently are IMO mistaken.

So, unless you want someone of Tony Blair persuasion, who's policies are going to be safe to the Murdochs etc you are left with the choice of Corbyn under who labour won't get elected or a.n.other leader under who labour also won't get elected.

 

[bluecol]

But... you joined nine years ago mate!

I don't think so, but even if I did I certainly didn't post on this thread until recently.

 

[tsubaki]

Corbyn? Momentum? Centre-left?


... ok then!

Ah, Momentum.

Eighteen months of talk of entryism, anti-democratic factions taking control of local parties and de-selecting MPs - and now its election time the only person in Labour working to unseat a sitting Labour MP is Peter Mandelson.

 

[Mrk]

The right wing press are going to hammer any labour leader left of Tony Blair. Those of you that are thinking differently are IMO mistaken.

So, unless you want someone of Tony Blair persuasion, who's policies are going to be safe to the Murdochs etc you are left with the choice of Corbyn under who labour won't get elected or a.n.other leader under who labour also won't get elected.

This kind of short-sighted thinking is exactly why the left is in such a mess. The complete obsession with the 'Right-wing press', the 'MSM', and 'The Murdochs' will doom the left to fail, and as long as the left continue to believe in this fallacy, they deserve to fail, badly.

If Labour can find a good, competent leader who has modern solutions to solving the problems this nation faces, there is absolutely nothing the MSM or the horrible right-wing press can do to stop them being elected, regardless of how far to the left they are. The general public is a lot more intelligent than you seem to be giving them credit for.

Corbyn isn't unelectable because the MSM are mean about him, or because Murdoch doesn't like him. He's unelectable because he's bloody useless.

 

[tsubaki]

This kind of short-sighted thinking is exactly why the left is in such a mess. The complete obsession with the 'Right-wing press', the 'MSM', and 'The Murdochs' will doom the left to fail, and as long as the left continue to believe in this fallacy, they deserve to fail, badly.

If Labour can find a good, competent leader who has modern solutions to solving the problems this nation faces, there is absolutely nothing the MSM or the horrible right-wing press can do to stop them being elected, regardless of how far to the left they are. The general public is a lot more intelligent than you seem to be giving them credit for.

Corbyn isn't unelectable because the MSM are mean about him, or because Murdoch doesn't like him. He's unelectable because he's bloody useless.

So you think editing a politicians answer to one question, and adding it to another question thereby completely removing the context for the answer, happens because he is unelectable?

 

[Mrk]

So you think editing a politicians answer to one question, and adding it to another question thereby completely removing the context for the answer, happens because he is unelectable?

No, I'm fairly confident my post said nothing of the sort.

 

[Clint Planet]

It isn't, though. Corbyn has been called a Marxist, and has said he admires Marx, but he has never come out and said "I am a Marxist", nor does a look at his politics over time suggest that he might be.

I think he's an unhinged lefty crackpot who, merely by standing, poses a clear and present threat to....erm.......

Hang on, what was the question?

 

[JonS]

This kind of short-sighted thinking is exactly why the left is in such a mess. The complete obsession with the 'Right-wing press', the 'MSM', and 'The Murdochs' will doom the left to fail, and as long as the left continue to believe in this fallacy, they deserve to fail, badly.

If Labour can find a good, competent leader who has modern solutions to solving the problems this nation faces, there is absolutely nothing the MSM or the horrible right-wing press can do to stop them being elected, regardless of how far to the left they are. The general public is a lot more intelligent than you seem to be giving them credit for.

Corbyn isn't unelectable because the MSM are mean about him, or because Murdoch doesn't like him. He's unelectable because he's bloody useless.

I see and agree with some (not all) of what you are saying but I think you underestimate what a constant (over months and years) character assassination by the press (that is then taken up by the less biased broadcast media when it becomes "the story") anytime the proprietors or their vested interests feel threatened, can do.

I have seen it not just with Corbyn and Foot but also with the far more centre (but still too threatening for those vested interests) Kinnock and Milliband.

And on Corbyn, yes he's been crap at getting across to the public but that responsibility has to be shared by his party who have failed to rally round and support him in the way the Tories do with their leaders even though they also have different views.

So if you want Blair or Brown 2 then carry on, but if you want a leader even slightly more radical than that you are probably going to find they won't get elected either.

 

[tsubaki]

No, I'm fairly confident my post said nothing of the sort.

Of course it did. You said:

This kind of short-sighted thinking is exactly why the left is in such a mess. The complete obsession with the 'Right-wing press', the 'MSM', and 'The Murdochs' will doom the left to fail, and as long as the left continue to believe in this fallacy, they deserve to fail, badly.

If Labour can find a good, competent leader who has modern solutions to solving the problems this nation faces, there is absolutely nothing the MSM or the horrible right-wing press can do to stop them being elected, regardless of how far to the left they are. The general public is a lot more intelligent than you seem to be giving them credit for.

If you have the state broadcaster - to say nothing of the privately owned Press for a moment - openly misleading the public as to the views of the main opposition leader over an issue of national importance, and willing to defy an independent adjudicator who makes a finding of fault against them for doing it, this is not something you can put down to "because he is bloody useless". Nor is it something that an imaginary hero figure could just brush aside.

Every Labour leader, with one exception, has faced the same type of attacks (if not at the same level as Corbyn has) from elements of the Press. We all should know why the exception to the rule got such favourable treatment, and what went on as the result of him getting it. We all should recognize the result of those attacks as well.

 

[Clint Planet]

he's blatantly a marxist; a follower of an ideology.

I have to say, I used to hold you in high regard but that post changes pretty much changes. everything. SO asinine that one wonders if it's a wind-up.

 

[orchard]

Thanks for the neg, I was beginning to feel left out.

Engage in this thread? I've only been on this site for a couple of months, in which time I've posted 62 times. If posters can neg me then I'm free to do the same to them if I don't like their posts. Do you have a problem with that? There are people I disagree with but I would never call them scum, not my style,

 

[Mrk]

I see and agree with some (not all) of what you are saying but I think you underestimate what a constant (over months and years) character assassination by the press (that is then taken up by the less biased broadcast media when it becomes "the story") anytime the proprietors or their vested interests feel threatened, can do.

I have seen it not just with Corbyn and Foot but also with the far more centre (but still too threatening for those vested interests) Kinnock and Milliband.

And on Corbyn, yes he's been crap at getting across to the public but that responsibility has to be shared by his party who have failed to rally round and support him in the way the Tories do with their leaders even though they also have different views.

So if you want Blair or Brown 2 then carry on, but if you want a leader even slightly more radical than that you are probably going to find they won't get elected either.

This just makes me despair, because you're essentially waving a white flag. If the left wants radical change, all they have to do is formulate policies that aren't stuck in the 20th century, and then find a leader who is competent enough to present them to the country. No amount of attacks from the right-wing press could stop them.

Corbyn is the right-wing press' wet dream, Blair, on the other hand, wasn't. They'd much rather have a Tory government than a centrist Labour government, but Blair's popularity forced them to be supportive (although, the extent to which this happened is overplayed a little bit).

 

[tsubaki]

Corbyn is the right-wing press' wet dream, Blair, on the other hand, wasn't. They'd much rather have a Tory government than a centrist Labour government, but Blair's popularity forced them to be supportive (although, the extent to which this happened is overplayed a little bit).

Perhaps this is something that you should ask Andy Burnham about.

 

[Mrk]

Of course it did. You said:

If you have the state broadcaster - to say nothing of the privately owned Press for a moment - openly misleading the public as to the views of the main opposition leader over an issue of national importance, and willing to defy an independent adjudicator who makes a finding of fault against them for doing it, this is not something you can put down to "because he is bloody useless". Nor is it something that an imaginary hero figure could just brush aside.

Every Labour leader, with one exception, has faced the same type of attacks (if not at the same level as Corbyn has) from elements of the Press. We all should know why the exception to the rule got such favourable treatment, and what went on as the result of him getting it. We all should recognize the result of those attacks as well.

The amazing thing about this is, I could and talk to right-wing people and hear exactly the same spiel about the 'state broadcaster', and how they are a fundamentally biased liberal-left organisation.

What really frustrates me is, the left aren't aware what damage they are doing to themselves by continuing to buy into this fallacy, because they won't win until they get their head out of the sand and understand that if they can find a charismatic leader with modern left-wing policies, they can win. If they continue to blame all of their failings on the media, they will continue to lose, and you have to ask yourself, who does that benefit?

 

[JonS]

The amazing thing about this is, I could and talk to right-wing people and hear exactly the same spiel about the 'state broadcaster', and how they are a fundamentally biased liberal-left organisation.

What really frustrates me is, the left aren't aware what damage they are doing to themselves by continuing to buy into this fallacy, because they won't win until they get their head out of the sand and understand that if they can find a charismatic leader with modern left-wing policies, they can win. If they continue to blame all of their failings on the media, they will continue to lose, and you have to ask yourself, who does that benefit?

What are the modern left wing policies you'd like to see (am not knocking you, just interested)?