Oh so correct we need a change big time but how.Originally Posted by Eric the Half a Bee
| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
Oh so correct we need a change big time but how.
I reckon we'll get as much change as they allow. :-(
All Corbyn has done is to make the Labour party about the people that is should represent. The divisions have been caused by The Tory Lite amongst the Labour Party, like that A grade Twat Chuka Umunna We haven't had a serious Left Wing Party in this country for many years. I think it's great, somebody who actually has some integrity and who will help the poorest and most vulnerable.
The notion of a "proper" Labour party after the New Labour phase was an attractive one, but the leadership has shown itself to be weak and too easy a target for the right wing media. There are posters on here whose political views I have plenty of time for who are adamant that antisemitism is not an issue in the Labour party, but my own view is that if there was a genuine will at the top of the party to tackle the issue head on, it would not be the festering sore to the party that it is today. Similarly, the way Labour has tied itself up in knots (mainly because of its leaders views on Europe being at odds with those of the majority of its members and MPs) has seen their "all things to all men" approach bring about a situation, which will, almost certainly, lead to confirmation tomorrow that they are almost an irrelevance as men, and women, desert them in droves - all at a time when it is predicted that the governing party are going to finish fifth in the poll.
I think the Labour anti-semitism 'crisis' is partly manufactured, although there are clearly some real examples of appalling racism.
I think the position of Labour as the main opposition with mainly Remain members and MPs, but with a large minority of its (mainly historic) supporters backing Leave was always going to put it in a difficult position - unlike smaller parties who could ignore half the country and adopt a clean position.
However, I agree that the Labour Party leadership has at times been weak and indecisive. They are very inexperienced, and the leader never wanted the role - although he has since grown into it a bit in that he has stopped offering up as many easy targets for hostile media and internal opponents to shoot at.
Despite the risk of splitting the Labour Party, the leadership has been fence sitting and watching the Tories implode for too long. A stronger and more experienced opposition would probably have been more effective in 2018. However, that doesn't magic away the parliamentary arithmetic or Theresa May's personality and style.
Maybe Labour could have damaged her more and brought her to a compromise offer without her own party dumping her? But that could only have been around a 'soft' Brexit (customs union etc.), and would also have risked splitting the Labour Party (even though that may have been in line with conference policy).
I think that's a fair analysis Jon, but with regard to your last paragraph, I did quite a long post on the politics forum outlining why I believe that Europe is/has been a much bigger problem for the Conservatives than for Labour. While I accept that it would mean losing votes and probably members from the Leave side of the argument, my instinct (admittedly, I'm far from infallible in that department!) is that Labour would handle a change of approach to favour becoming a "remain" party far better than the Tories would and so feel that they are missing a trick so to speak - again, I'm talking instinct here, but it seems to me that the current leader is the biggest obstruction to such a thing happening.
The new, even more right wing, PM will have to call an election. They won’t get a no deal through Parliament without a change in the numbers. The country won’t vote for a no deal government either so it’s deal or scrap brexit.
A man of integrity?
Pass the sickbag Alice
Independant? Guardian? Observer? New Statesman
Up against The Sun, Mail, Express, Times, Sunday Times, The Sun on Sunday, The Telegraph, The Mail on Sunday, The Sunday Express, The Sunday Telegraph, The Spectator etc etc. It’s hardly balanced
The New Statesman is a weekly publication. The Observer is basically the Guardian on a Sunday.
Top 10 national daily papers in the UK by circulation:
Metro (owned by Daily Mail) (right wing)
The Sun (right wing)
Daily Mail (far right wing)
Daily Mirror (left wing)
The Times (right wing)
The Telegraph (right wing)
Daily Star (right wing)
Daily Express (right wing)
Independent (neutral)
Guardian (centre left)
You might say from that list that right wing media is simply more popular. However, I've been into shops where I've never seen a copy of the Independent and Guardian. The right wing media outlets are run by billionnaires who can afford to take losses in order to peddle what they want. I don't believe it is right for billionnaires to be able to influence how we think so much.
Yep
I recall rerading somewhere that the average daily is paid for by the advertising before it is printed. Or at least close to......
The Guardian and Observer (and to a lesser extent New Statesman) have been more effective and enthusiastic cheerleaders for the anti-Corbyn (AKA anti-Labour) campaign than many of the outright (and overwhelming) Tory press.
Funnily enough Eric I was aware that the New Statesman is weekly and the Observer is on Sunday.
I omitted the Daily Mirror in error.
And the Daily Mail while unquestionably right wing is far less so than it was under Dacre.
Don't disagree thst billionaires do have undue influence.
Not sure what the solution is although I do think that the print media influence has been diluted since the internet.
I don't think there is a solution. I believe the elite and most wealthy will always find ways to influence the average person. Look at the Russian influence on social media in recent years.
Not saying balanced but what is the answer?
You have alluded to it. The printed media is dying. Young people don’t buy newspapers. However the right wing press is now much more prominent on-line but at least that provides more of a level playing field.
Yes I agree with this.
I never read papers now (and when I did I read them with a large pinch of salt).
Internet does balance things a bit.
Why is anti Corbyn necessarily anti Labour???
Because those so-called left leaning papers/magazines have often claimed that Corbyn, Corbynistas, Momentum (except when they like Momentum for challenging what they think Corbyn believes) have taken over or hijacked the Labour Party - and as a result they have called for voters to support the Lib Dems, Greens, Change UK etc.
The leader and the party don't have to be the same - although in the case of Labour the vast majority of the expanded membership support the leader, even if it is still a minority of MPs - but my point was that the liberal press have equated the leader with the party when trying to influence electoral outcomes.
As Mark Twain once said, “ If voting made a difference, they wouldn’t let us do it “
Spot on
It's an interesting one as left leaning folk buy right wing papers ,if they didn't , the Daily Mirror would sell so many more copies,than the Sun.
Talking to a newsagents recently about selling out of certain papers , he informs me that the shelf supply is driven by the demand .
I'm sure if a billionaire though could sell 10 million papers a year to a left audience ,I'm sure he would, bugger his politics ,as it's about the money .
You've taken out of the equation completely the possibility that papers have an agenda to get people to think the way they want.
I would agree that many don't consider political leanings when they buy a paper. The media will know this. Their job is to peddle what they're told to, or set the agenda their bosses want.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote