Current Affairs The Labour Party

[tsubaki]

Then doesn’t that become cronyism, rather than an issue of class per say?

Not really - for it to be cronyism it would need to be a smaller network than it is and there wouldn’t be the cadet element this has. Oborne called them the political class a decade ago and it’s an apt phrase.

 

[orchard]

 

[roydo]

Not arsed about the FOI thing, seems a good thing. But using tax, even in a populist, "tax the media/tech giants" way to fund the BBC, is very much the thin end of the wedge towards a state broadcaster. As in, controlled by said state.

 

[Number_25]

I don't think a comic has ever made me as emotional as that.

 

[orchard]

Not arsed about the FOI thing, seems a good thing. But using tax, even in a populist, "tax the media/tech giants" way to fund the BBC, is very much the thin end of the wedge towards a state broadcaster. As in, controlled by said state.

I think that's what he's against too mate, read back a bit.

 

[tsubaki]

I think that's what he's against too mate, read back a bit.

I know, but having the state actually fund journalism (which is what the trailed bit of the speech said) would inevitably lead to state involvement in the press, no government would be able to resist paying for stories about how great it is. They'd be better off cutting taxes or making them charities (I know he said only some, but they'd inevitably all be non-profits after about two seconds - lets face it only a couple of them make a profit anyway).

I do however like the idea of a British Digital Corporation - there are things online that BBC were made to get rid of (weather, traffic etc) that it made zero sense "to open up to the market" and you can make much the same point about archive material (for instance it is a genuine disgrace that you have to pay private firms for access to the censuses, military records and items at the National Archives unless you live close enough) and old BBC programmes - which we've already paid for once.

 

[zzr45]

Not really - for it to be cronyism it would need to be a smaller network than it is and there wouldn’t be the cadet element this has. Oborne called them the political class a decade ago and it’s an apt phrase.

Then it becomes unconscious bias in hiring then?

 

[tsubaki]

Then it becomes unconscious bias in hiring then?

Not really unconcious, no - at least in the sense that they are all aware of it and they do deliberately generate "new" roles (special advisors, PCCs, devolved administrations, elected mayors, whatever the Lords is now, lobbying (especially), NHS boards, free schools and academies, think tanks etc) for themselves.

They then select people who fit their conception of good (which is where it becomes closest to unconcious bias), though that conception is a very narrow one and (especially in terms of politics) almost always requires knowing someone else from that class.

 

[Number_25]

It's great to see a genuinely radical Labour Party.

I don't buy into this "British exceptionalism", but I do believe that this country can play a role in creating a system of true democracy that other nations would want to emulate.

 

[orchard]

I know, but having the state actually fund journalism (which is what the trailed bit of the speech said) would inevitably lead to state involvement in the press, no government would be able to resist paying for stories about how great it is. They'd be better off cutting taxes or making them charities (I know he said only some, but they'd inevitably all be non-profits after about two seconds - lets face it only a couple of them make a profit anyway).

I do however like the idea of a British Digital Corporation - there are things online that BBC were made to get rid of (weather, traffic etc) that it made zero sense "to open up to the market" and you can make much the same point about archive material (for instance it is a genuine disgrace that you have to pay private firms for access to the censuses, military records and items at the National Archives unless you live close enough) and old BBC programmes - which we've already paid for once.

It depends on the detail really mate, but I doubt it would fly in the face of the general ethos of what was said and permit tight state control like it is now.

 

[tsubaki]

It depends on the detail really mate, but I doubt it would fly in the face of the general ethos of what was said and permit tight state control like it is now.

I can see what you are saying, but I think any state involvement in the press beyond facilitating its spread (ie: charitable status* and tax breaks) and defending it by not having excessive legal measures with which to shut it up is to probably stray across the line of state control, however well-intentioned.

I mean the biggest problems with genuine investigative journalism (of the kind that hacks all think they do) is that it doesnt usually make money and that most of the people worth targetting are that powerful that they can usually outspend or intimidate the paper concerned, unless the paper tells them to get bent. There is only one national news outlet of this kind in the country (Private Eye), and really the state should limit itself to allowing more of that type of thing to come about.

*as long as it is not something that can be easily withdrawn

 

[davek]

The Alex Salmond assault story that broke overnight is an interesting one. That could benefit Labour up there and wheedle out a few more seats north of the border.

If the SNP are at each others throats (and Salmond is a big beast still and can make a lot of noise and has allies in that party) then SNP unity and morale will be undermined.

One to look out for this.

 

[catcherintherye]

The Alex Salmond assault story that broke overnight is an interesting one. That could benefit Labour up there and wheedle out a few more seats north of the border.

If the SNP are at each others throats (and Salmond is a big beast still and can make a lot of noise and has allies in that party) then SNP unity and morale will be undermined.

One to look out for this.

If Labour had any sense they'd do a deal with the SNP. They could wipe out the Tories North of the border, split the seats between them and go a long way to winning back Scottish Yes voters. I could never understand the Labour pre-occupation with trying to defeat other centre left parties over the tories, The decision by Scottish Lab to do pacts with the Tories over the SNP are particularly appalling as they probably handed the Tories the keys to government.

No Way do the SNP vote against Labour on anything. It would be suicide. Build the left, wipe out the tories should be the message.

 

[tsubaki]

It wo

If Labour had any sense they'd do a deal with the SNP. They could wipe out the Tories North of the border, split the seats between them and go a long way to winning back Scottish Yes voters. I could never understand the Labour pre-occupation with trying to defeat other centre left parties over the tories, The decision by Scottish Lab to do pacts with the Tories over the SNP are particularly appalling as they probably handed the Tories the keys to government.

No Way do the SNP vote against Labour on anything. It would be suicide. Build the left, wipe out the tories should be the message.

It would never happen - the SNP would never go for it because they know that the rival to them in terms of gaining voters is Labour much more than it is the Tories.


To ally with them now would be as daft as when Clegg did it, and would probably get the same result.

 

[davek]

If Labour had any sense they'd do a deal with the SNP. They could wipe out the Tories North of the border, split the seats between them and go a long way to winning back Scottish Yes voters. I could never understand the Labour pre-occupation with trying to defeat other centre left parties over the tories, The decision by Scottish Lab to do pacts with the Tories over the SNP are particularly appalling as they probably handed the Tories the keys to government.

No Way do the SNP vote against Labour on anything. It would be suicide. Build the left, wipe out the tories should be the message.

Well, my opinion is that the LP should not be a unionist party. It should have supported self-determination in Scotland. The nationalist vote up there rests a lot on socialiists who have found refuge from Blairism in the SNP with it's mildly collectivist approach to politics. Scotland could be a sovereign nation who are leftist by proclivity. Just let them go.


That wont happen though because the LP nationally (Uk-wide) need Scotland to get control of Westminster. As said, the SNP could be in for a spell of blood-letting now and that can help Corbyn into No10.