Current Affairs The Labour Party

[BlueToff]

Not sure that the past century of British politics supports any of that analysis, tbh. The papers have been the key power in determining who runs the country, hence them being stuffed with Tories and the absolute panic that was caused when XR stopped the Murdoch rags going out for just a day.

Labour did far better than expected in 2017, but the past year has made the much-derided 2019 manifesto look far more accurate a description of what would be required to fix this country. Yes, Brexit was not dealt with properly in either 2017 or 2019 - every single one of the delays was down to Tory intransigence after all - and yes, they basically ignored national security (even though the government record there was and us shameful), but they were on a better trajectory than anything seen from Labour from 2001 onwards.

Corbyn’s time as leader wasn’t perfect by any means, but I think history will be a lot kinder to him than any of his contemporaries (especially in terms of Labour senior politicians).

I liked Corbyn. I'm not sure his leadership (singular) was necessarily the biggest issue. But the leadership on a whole left the party in a dismal state - the biggest defeat ever suffered.

Blaming the media for that is the equivalent of blaming the media for Everton getting relegated, mate.

The sooner Labour/Tory voters - whoever - get off this train of insisting everything is biased against them, and start actually looking at the policies in place and how the MPs put across their arguments, then the better off we'll be.

Labour's 2019 manifesto was crap because it achieved nothing. It didn't get them in power, it didn't stop the Tories getting a massive majority and it was easier for people (and yes, the media) to pick holes in it - even if a lot of things in it were, in theory, correct, they had nothing of substance to back it up.

I genuinely don't know enough about Starmer. So far it appears the mess is as bad as it was, but it's like Brands taking over from Walsh. I have my concerns about Brands which I've aired because he makes mistakes, same with Starmer, but then what's the root cause?

 

[BigMick]

Black Labour MPs are not happy with the delay of the findings of the Floode Inquiry - an inquiry concerning LP internal handling of so called "anti-semitism" cases, but which also is tasked with looking into LP right wingers' racial attacks on black LP MPs and black members. The LP leadership look like they're kicking any anti-racism case into the long grass.

Black Labour MPs "seriously concerned" by Forde Inquiry indefinite delay - LabourList

Nine Black Labour MPs, including shadow cabinet member Marsha de Cordova and frontbencher Chi Onwurah, have said they…

labourlist.org

Starmer has chosen to go down the UJ - little Englander - patriotic route and doesn't want to antagonise the anti-immigrant voters he believes he needs to win in 2024.

Martin Forde has explained the reason for the delay:

"We have recently been made aware, however, that as a result of those potential breaches, the ICO has indicated it is making inquiries, pursuant to its statutory duties. Having regard to the possible direction and outcome of those inquiries, we are therefore concerned that the publication of our report could prejudice those inquiries and our ability ultimately to deliver our final report to the NEC.
We have considered whether any aspect of our report can be disclosed despite the existence of the ICO’s inquiries. However, after careful consideration, we consider there is a real risk that even partial disclosure of our report and findings could have the potential to prejudice the ICO’s work. As soon as its inquiries are completed, and resolved, we will provide a report."

Nothing to do with SKS.

 

[davek]

Martin Forde has explained the reason for the delay:

"We have recently been made aware, however, that as a result of those potential breaches, the ICO has indicated it is making inquiries, pursuant to its statutory duties. Having regard to the possible direction and outcome of those inquiries, we are therefore concerned that the publication of our report could prejudice those inquiries and our ability ultimately to deliver our final report to the NEC.
We have considered whether any aspect of our report can be disclosed despite the existence of the ICO’s inquiries. However, after careful consideration, we consider there is a real risk that even partial disclosure of our report and findings could have the potential to prejudice the ICO’s work. As soon as its inquiries are completed, and resolved, we will provide a report."

Nothing to do with SKS.

Naive in the extreme.

 

[tsubaki]

In the pockets of the stoneage Unionists of NI...much more one of them than she was a Labour MP. I'm not entirely sure how someone with her horrendous worldview found a home in Labour.

TBF at least it was honestly expressed; she never hid any of her Unionist leanings, or being pro-hunting / pro-CA or even anti-EU.

I think (and still do) there was a lot more to be said positively about her than the Woodcocks, Gapes, Austins or Umunnas of this world.

 

[davek]

TBF at least it was honestly expressed; she never hid any of her Unionist leanings, or being pro-hunting / pro-CA or even anti-EU.

I think (and still do) there was a lot more to be said positively about her than the Woodcocks, Gapes, Austins or Umunnas of this world.

TBF, that's an extremely low bar to negotaite.

Speaking of that rat Woodcock: I see he's been commissioned to carry out an inquiry into political extremism...and he's sitting in judgement of the BLM and Extinction Rebellion groups.

Unreal, in the pockets of tyrants in the middle east and the nuclear industry, a man facing charges of indecent assault against women...HE is sitting in judgement of others.

 

[JimmyJeffers]

Blaming the media for that is the equivalent of blaming the media for Everton getting relegated, mate.

No it isn’t. For example, look at how much of the print media is pro Tory. People may not buy the paper but they might glance over the headlines whilst going shopping or to the newsagents. It undoubtedly has an effect. People will say time and time again that they don’t like corbyn or they think labour were too far left. Try asking what was it they didn’t like about corbyn or what labour policies could be deemed socialist and you’re met with blank faces and trotted out soundbites. Try asking someone what socialism or Trotskyism even is and I guarantee only a tiny percentage of the population would be able to give an adequate answer.
I think the BBC ties itself in knots trying to remain neutral but there was definitely an anti corbyn sentiment there as there was an anti brexit.
Labour made a lot of mistakes no doubt and their policies can’t appeal to everyone but media influence undoubtedly plays its part.
If everton get relegated it’s cos they’ve played badly. Nothing to do with public perception.

 

[tsubaki]

I liked Corbyn. I'm not sure his leadership (singular) was necessarily the biggest issue. But the leadership on a whole left the party in a dismal state - the biggest defeat ever suffered.

Blaming the media for that is the equivalent of blaming the media for Everton getting relegated, mate.

The sooner Labour/Tory voters - whoever - get off this train of insisting everything is biased against them, and start actually looking at the policies in place and how the MPs put across their arguments, then the better off we'll be.

Labour's 2019 manifesto was crap because it achieved nothing. It didn't get them in power, it didn't stop the Tories getting a massive majority and it was easier for people (and yes, the media) to pick holes in it - even if a lot of things in it were, in theory, correct, they had nothing of substance to back it up.

I genuinely don't know enough about Starmer. So far it appears the mess is as bad as it was, but it's like Brands taking over from Walsh. I have my concerns about Brands which I've aired because he makes mistakes, same with Starmer, but then what's the root cause?

Again, this is to just completely ignore what has happened these past forty years. If we'd got relegated because the media invented a series of scandals against us then yes, we could (and should) blame them for doing that.

The reason why the overwhelming advantage that one party has from the bulk of the print media (and online, and increasingly TV) is so crucial to acknowledge is because what you propose - fighting elections based on the superiority of ones ideas - is an impossibility whilst that overwhelming advantage exists.

Look at the US, where the complete and utter disaster of the past four years has resulted in the person responsible being openly called the best president they've ever had, to see the power of the modern media; they've successfully managed to convince 75 million people that a man whose basically caned the national debt, who was laughed at by the entire world and whose incompetence killed 400,000 US citizens was better than Eisenhower, Roosevelt (both of them) and Lincoln. They are still at it, too.

 

[BlueToff]

Again, this is to just completely ignore what has happened these past forty years. If we'd got relegated because the media invented a series of scandals against us then yes, we could (and should) blame them for doing that.

The reason why the overwhelming advantage that one party has from the bulk of the print media (and online, and increasingly TV) is so crucial to acknowledge is because what you propose - fighting elections based on the superiority of ones ideas - is an impossibility whilst that overwhelming advantage exists.

Look at the US, where the complete and utter disaster of the past four years has resulted in the person responsible being openly called the best president they've ever had, to see the power of the modern media; they've successfully managed to convince 75 million people that a man whose basically caned the national debt, who was laughed at by the entire world and whose incompetence killed 400,000 US citizens was better than Eisenhower, Roosevelt (both of them) and Lincoln. They are still at it, too.

Ey? Are you seriously suggesting that the entire American media hyped up Trump? Fox, yes. The rest of them???

CNN were on his case every single day - and rightly so. As were all the mainstream papers. All you'd done there is prove my argument. I'm sorry, you're better than that.

I just want Labour to be better. I wanted Corbyn's government in power and think he's a good man. But he was about as useful as a chocolate teapot. There was nobody swayed into voting labour (by and large) under his leadership. So far, it appears Starmer's doing a similarly bad job.

 

[BlueToff]

No it isn’t. For example, look at how much of the print media is pro Tory. People may not buy the paper but they might glance over the headlines whilst going shopping or to the newsagents. It undoubtedly has an effect. People will say time and time again that they don’t like corbyn or they think labour were too far left. Try asking what was it they didn’t like about corbyn or what labour policies could be deemed socialist and you’re met with blank faces and trotted out soundbites. Try asking someone what socialism or Trotskyism even is and I guarantee only a tiny percentage of the population would be able to give an adequate answer.
I think the BBC ties itself in knots trying to remain neutral but there was definitely an anti corbyn sentiment there as there was an anti brexit.
Labour made a lot of mistakes no doubt and their policies can’t appeal to everyone but media influence undoubtedly plays its part.
If everton get relegated it’s cos they’ve played badly. Nothing to do with public perception.

I get media influence plays it's part, but people blame it for everything. It's not the main reason. If a politician actually tried to answer the questions, it'd be a start. Corbyn was useless. Roberto Martinez, like I said. Promised nice stuff, showed some glimpses - a flash of free broadband here and there - but failed to deal with issues which crippled the party, and ardent supporters refused - and still refuse - to accept that.

I just want a Labour government in power. I don't agree with blaming everything else when they get the worst hiding they've ever had, though.

 

[tsubaki]

Ey? Are you seriously suggesting that the entire American media hyped up Trump? Fox, yes. The rest of them???

CNN were on his case every single day - and rightly so. As were all the mainstream papers. All you'd done there is prove my argument. I'm sorry, you're better than that.

I just want Labour to be better. I wanted Corbyn's government in power and think he's a good man. But he was about as useful as a chocolate teapot. There was nobody swayed into voting labour (by and large) under his leadership. So far, it appears Starmer's doing a similarly bad job.

No, and that was clear by the fact that I didn't say "the entire American media hyped up Trump". FWIW though, the pro-Trump media wasn't just Fox - its the Fox-competitors (OANN etc), the local networks run by Sinclair, Murdoch's papers and of course the online zoo as well.

I didn't say the entire British media was pro-Tory either btw; the point was how effective such support is at boosting or denigrating political opponents, and how much more important it is than (sadly) matters of policy or whats best for the country.

Also how on earth can you say "there was nobody swayed into voting labour (by and large) under his leadership? Millions more people did vote Labour under his leadership, at both his elections.

 

[BlueToff]

No, and that was clear by the fact that I didn't say "the entire American media hyped up Trump". FWIW though, the pro-Trump media wasn't just Fox - its the Fox-competitors (OANN etc), the local networks run by Sinclair, Murdoch's papers and of course the online zoo as well.

I didn't say the entire British media was pro-Tory either btw; the point was how effective such support is at boosting or denigrating political opponents, and how much more important it is than (sadly) matters of policy or whats best for the country.

Also how on earth can you say "there was nobody swayed into voting labour (by and large) under his leadership? Millions more people did vote Labour under his leadership, at both his elections.

Can we not just say that people are thick, though? America's a proper weird place. And all Trump did was latch onto some kind of feeling and vibe in the country and build from that. Then yes, certain media outlets backed that horse. But we have nothing like that in the mainstream broadcast media here. We have nothing like Fox, and nothing like CNN either. Maybe... maybe TalkRadio, but really, we don't.

The media has always been used as a political tool though, it's who uses it best wins? Who is more savvy with it can get into power. Who is more savvy with it knows how to use it to get their manifesto/policies out there and to the right voters it needs to convince.

And that links to my other point. Corbyn and Momentum were preaching to the choir. They did well in 2017, but lost by a big majority in 2019. The only people convinced were the ones who were convinced in the first place. And elections aren't won by preaching to the choir. They're won by convincing people who might not normally vote for you, to vote for you.

Labour lost twice, to two of the worst Tory governments well, ever, one who had been unelected at first, and another which was based entirely on one issue which Labour somehow managed to get itself so tangled up over it did for them.

Labour can't keep making that mistake. Their core votership isn't students, middle-class lefties or Yuppies. And they need to get that core voter back. I don't know if Starmer is the right person to do that. But currently, is there anyone else, or is the party that much of a mess that they're all as useless as each other – I genuinely don't know.

My media argument can be summed up like this: What do you say to somebody who is on the right (not racist, but just more right than left) who is convinced that, by and large, the media is against their point of view? They think exactly like you do, so how do you prove otherwise?

 

[JimmyJeffers]

I get media influence plays it's part, but people blame it for everything. It's not the main reason. If a politician actually tried to answer the questions, it'd be a start. Corbyn was useless. Roberto Martinez, like I said. Promised nice stuff, showed some glimpses - a flash of free broadband here and there - but failed to deal with issues which crippled the party, and ardent supporters refused - and still refuse - to accept that.

I just want a Labour government in power. I don't agree with blaming everything else when they get the worst hiding they've ever had, though.

I think corbyn was badly advised at times and made some poor choices but it was clear that the majority of his MPs were either unsupportive or actively undermining him. If Labour had united behind his leadership, results may have been different.
If you’re referring to anti-semitism, apart from some incidents and individuals, I believe this was massively conflated with critique of Israeli policy. Corbyn didn’t really know how to respond to be fair. Especially when his opposite number is able to get away with calling women in Burkhas letterboxes.

 

[dead_soft]

#fakenews that mate - I never liked Corbyn but I didnt contribute in any online / social media campaign to whip up flames against him/the party.

What I've seen in recent months is scandalous - people simply can not moan if we get another term of the Tories and austerity cuts as they are damaging the only credible opposition against them its that simple.

'I never liked Corbyn so I didn't vote in the last general although I still hoped Labour would win' - hard to say you didn't contribute to the situation where Labour didn't win...

'Labours own fault - Corbyn and momentum have utterly destroyed the party.
Sooner they bugger off to the Lib Dems where they belong the better.
Labour needs to get back to its centre position if it ever hopes to win an election again.'


'The fact is Corbyn is taking Labour further Left every election and its playing right into the Tories hands.
If they actually wisened up and got a proper leader in they might have had a chance.'


Colour me SHOCKED that it was that easy.

 

[BlueToff]

I think corbyn was badly advised at times and made some poor choices but it was clear that the majority of his MPs were either unsupportive or actively undermining him. If Labour had united behind his leadership, results may have been different.
If you’re referring to anti-semitism, apart from some incidents and individuals, I believe this was massively conflated with critique of Israeli policy. Corbyn didn’t really know how to respond to be fair. Especially when his opposite number is able to get away with calling women in Burkhas letterboxes.

You're right too - it's a combination, but a strong/better leader would have surely united the party?

Corbyn isn't an anti-semite, I know/believe that much. However, he didn't know how to handle the examples of that in his party and it did alienate Jewish voters. My mate worked for the Jewish Chronicle in London at the time and he liked Corbyn, but he was fighting a losing battle as his inaction/indecision - whatever you want to call it (perhaps even the bad advice he received?) - alienated a lot of possible voters.

Like I said, I like him as a person. He seems somebody who fully believes in the right things in life, and is a kind, fair person. But I don't like the state that the party was in under him and is now in as (partly) a result of that, whether that was all down to him or not.

I also don't know if Starmer is the right person but, we aren't getting an election any time soon.

I agree on Johnson, but he knew/knows how to play the press. That's not necessarily the same as media bias, though. It's about picking who to target. Brexit was all that mattered - rightly or wrongly (wrongly imo) - in the last election.

 

[JimmyJeffers]

You're right too - it's a combination, but a strong/better leader would have surely united the party?

Corbyn isn't an anti-semite, I know/believe that much. However, he didn't know how to handle the examples of that in his party and it did alienate Jewish voters. My mate worked for the Jewish Chronicle in London at the time and he liked Corbyn, but he was fighting a losing battle as his inaction/indecision - whatever you want to call it (perhaps even the bad advice he received?) - alienated a lot of possible voters.

Like I said, I like him as a person. He seems somebody who fully believes in the right things in life, and is a kind, fair person. But I don't like the state that the party was in under him and is now in as (partly) a result of that, whether that was all down to him or not.

I also don't know if Starmer is the right person but, we aren't getting an election any time soon.

I agree on Johnson, but he knew/knows how to play the press. That's not necessarily the same as media bias, though. It's about picking who to target. Brexit was all that mattered - rightly or wrongly (wrongly imo) - in the last election.

Johnson knows how to play the press cos he could fart into a bucket at a press conference and the headlines would be ‘BORIS BOOSTING MORALE WITH EGGY WONDERS’