Topic: The Labour Party (*)

[Peabee]

"More of a majority"? How much bigger can it get? The Tories are predicted a landslide on a par with Blair's 1997 majority.

The fact that they've swallowed up the UKIP portion of the popular vote is entirely predictable and frankly, down to Labour.

So what do you suggest? Even with no credible opposition, the Tories are polling in the low 40s, meaning that over half the electorate are not Tory.

I haven't a clue mate. 

Maybe some sort of political alliance of the left and centre-left?   

[zebenzui]

And here are his exact words..

https://m.soundcloud.com/jimwaterson/jeremy-corbyn-on-his-future-as-labour-leader?utm_source=soundcloud&utm_campaign=wtshare&utm_medium=Twitter&utm_content=https%3A//soundcloud.com/jimwaterson/jeremy-corbyn-on-his-future-as-labour-leader

They reported what he actually said.

Those minutes are an aide-memoire for us. They should not be a reductive record of what happened to have been said, but they should be more a full record of what was intended to have been said.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

"More of a majority"? How much bigger can it get? The Tories are predicted a landslide on a par with Blair's 1997 majority.

The fact that they've swallowed up the UKIP portion of the popular vote is entirely predictable and frankly, down to Labour.

So what do you suggest? Even with no credible opposition, the Tories are polling in the low 40s, meaning that over half the electorate are not Tory.

How is most UKIP voters being obvious shy Tories labours fault?

[Andy @ Allerton!]

You should share your disgust with the commenters on Express articles and various Tory forums (google is your friend) who think she's a despicable lefty.

The only websites where you post with crayons and colouring in pens

[redmark]

The only websites where you post with crayons and colouring in pens

And yet you (and Trada) share the crayon-wielding maniacs views that the BBC's political editor is an ideological disgrace to her profession .

[TepidT2O]

I'm in total agreement with you. I'm just trying to look at it from their perspective, so many better ways to deal with it if they didn't want it to be the main talking point. The option they chose just highlights again how incompetent they all are and that they shouldn't be running a government.

Oh, sorry I misinterpreted what you said to mean you didn't know what had happened.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

And yet you (and Trada) share the crayon-wielding maniacs views that the BBC's political editor is an ideological disgrace to her profession .

I don't like her no. People not allowed an opinion? Colouring in makes more sense than most modern media and politicians

[Alan_X]

How is most UKIP voters being obvious shy Tories labours fault?

Because a lot of them used to be Labour voters.

[redmark]

I don't like her no. People not allowed an opinion? Colouring in makes more sense than most modern media and politicians

Of course. I was just pointing out that she's slated for her treatment of both party leaders (and if I could be bothered, there's probably a tiny forum of disgruntled LibDems somewhere, not to mention Nuttall/Frottage/Sturgeon supporters). And you posted that view the day after she clearly highlighted May's failure as Home Secretary to meet the 'tens of thousands' target.

If the BBC Political Editor is accused of political bias by all sides, perhaps she's just asking difficult questions of senior political figures.

[Yorkykopite]

His interview with Kuenssberg is worse. Fails to answer an obvious Brexit question that is put to him seven times.

It was bound to happen and anyone with any intelligence knows it.

Corbyn is anti-Europe. He always has been. Yet the party he inherited was pro-Europe. He led it and therefore had to fall in line with its overwhelming preference to Remain. He did it half-heartedly. So far half-heartedly that he went on a nice holiday during the height of the referendum campaign. People began to suspect he was lying when he said 'remain'. On the day after the vote he demanded a 'hard Brexit'. That didn't go down well with Labour people. It put him not just on the side of the government but ahead of them. Then he whipped his MPs to vote for the Tories in the Commons. Then someone pointed out that 70 per cent of Labour voters were Remainers. It's been confusion ever since. Now he trims his sails to whatever wind he's presently facing. He changes his mind from day to day depending on what question he's asked. No one knows what his position is because he's afraid to say it.

And some deluded fools still say he's "a man of principle." It's a fucking good joke. But that's all it is.

[TepidT2O]

Corbyn isn't fighting a general election, he's fighting a leadership election, and the voters (and in the end members) will see through it.

Fair comment?

https://twitter.com/jolyongreen/status/861896493669777408

[classycarra]

Very much appreciate you magnanamously quoting this to prove me right. Ta la

[zero zero]

Fair comment?

https://twitter.com/jolyongreen/status/861896493669777408

Thought you called it hours ago

Too much about what was wrong with the Tories than what labour could do for your undecided voter for my liking..

That's a strategy to talk to your own supporters, not to win over new ones.

[It's Jimmy Corkhill]

Thought you called it hours ago
That's a strategy to talk to your own supporters, not to win over new ones.

Or highlight to the fence-sitting middle how fucking backward the Tories are.

Can't link on my phone, but there's a tiny comment piece on fox hunting in The New Statesman. Why shouldn't they highlight things like this? It's barbaric.

And people say Corbyn is stuck in the past! He might have a romanticised view of Leftist politics but I bet you you he doesn't want to dress up like a twat on a horse and have his dogs rip foxes limb from limb after chasing them to exhaustion. I know exactly who I'd rather associate with.

[zero zero]

Or highlight to the fence-sitting middle how fucking backward the Tories are.

With our 70s throwback and Marxist Chancellor?

Can't link on my phone, but there's a tiny comment piece on fox hunting in The New Statesman. Why shouldn't they highlight things like this? It's barbaric.

It is, but so what? I live in a city. The closest I get to fox-hunting is going for a pint in the fox and hounds. I'm as into wildlife as the next man, but this is a world away from my life.

You know, before you pinged my phone this morning I woke up thinking about this film I watched last night. This mother of four going door-to-door. And her poor dad. I urge you to watch it, just 11 minutes. It's about what austerity means in rural Lancashire. They get three buses a day to their village! WTF? I have a 24hour bus six minutes walk from my house. It'll take me to the nearest hospital in fifteen minutes more. What these people are facing is a world away from my life too. It's grim viewing but watch this video if you can.

This was a good video from Jon Harris at The Guardian about the Tories winning in Lancashire by promising to, erm, reverse the cuts the Tories in Westminster imposed. So sad the left have been able to find a convincing way to put their alternatives the past 7 years.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2017/may/09/cuts-anger-frustration-and-labour-still-cant-break-through-video

Here's the New Stateman link. I'll post it up in good faith for you, but I cannot get past that video this morning.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/june2017/2017/05/if-were-going-talk-about-fox-hunting-again-lets-be-honest-about-it

[Red Beret]

Fucking hell

They used his words .. his actual words.

He probably didn't mean to say it, but that's the problem, good at protesting, shit at politics.

Utter incompetence.  Corbynballs 671

Edit: the idea of a different meaning being feasible is quite tenuous...  even if it were true, they reported what he ACTUALLY SAID.  How can they ban an organization for reporting his actual words?  Bizarre.

They need to stop listening to his words and hear what is in his heart. #trumpesque

[Bunter]

Journalistic Representations of Jeremy Corbyn in the British Press - London School of Economics

This research project provides a sound and theoretically informed analysis of the various (or unison) media representations of the rise of Jeremy Corbyn as a candidate for the Labour leadership and of him as the new leader of the largest opposition party in the UK. Furthermore, this project also aims to make a contribution to the ongoing public debate regarding the role of mainstream media and of journalists in a media-saturated democracy.

We set out to recognise and acknowledge the legitimate role of the press to critique and challenge the powers that be, which is often encapsulated by the metaphor of the watchdog. Our systematic content analysis of a representative sample of newspaper articles published in 8 national newspapers between 1 September and 1 November 2015, however, shows that the press reacted in a highly transgressive manner to the new leader of the opposition, hence our reference to the attackdog metaphor.

Our analysis shows that Corbyn was thoroughly delegitimised as a political actor from the moment he became a prominent candidate and even more so after he was elected as party leader, with a strong mandate. This process of delegitimisation occurred in several ways: 1) through lack of or distortion of voice; 2) through ridicule, scorn and personal attacks; and 3) through association, mainly with terrorism.

All this raises, in our view, a number of pressing ethical questions regarding the role of the media in a democracy. Certainly, democracies need their media to challenge power and offer robust debate, but when this transgresses into an antagonism that undermines legitimate political voices that dare to contest the current status quo, then it is not democracy that is served.

Full report in link.

http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/Mainstream-Media-Representations-of-Jeremy-Corbyn.aspx

[Zeb]

Journalistic Representations of Jeremy Corbyn in the British Press - London School of Economics

The first point they raise is "lack of voice" given to Corbyn. Which may be true at times, but it's also proof of how important it is to get your message to journalists before they file. I'd be fascinated to see the results after that has been accounted for.

The second point is "delegitimisation". And it's undeniably true that the right-wing papers, which is where the report finds this a big problem, mock and ridicule Corbyn. As they have every Labour leader. I would say that if being linked to the IRA, Hamas etc is "delegitimisation" then perhaps Jeremy should have considered that before running for leader because, with the best will in the world, if you're calling terrorists "friends" it's not usually going to play well to anyone but other "friends" of terrorists.

The conclusion is that the right wing newspapers may not be helpful for democracy. I'm ok with that. But that's the hurdle for every Labour leader to get over. That's the job.

[B0151?]

I'm not sure I needed a report to tell me the newspapers in this country were partisan? It's not their job to respect a Labour leader.

I wish the newspapers weren't like that of course!

[Alan_X]

Journalistic Representations of Jeremy Corbyn in the British Press - London School of Economics

This research project provides a sound and theoretically informed analysis of the various (or unison) media representations of the rise of Jeremy Corbyn as a candidate for the Labour leadership and of him as the new leader of the largest opposition party in the UK. Furthermore, this project also aims to make a contribution to the ongoing public debate regarding the role of mainstream media and of journalists in a media-saturated democracy.

We set out to recognise and acknowledge the legitimate role of the press to critique and challenge the powers that be, which is often encapsulated by the metaphor of the watchdog. Our systematic content analysis of a representative sample of newspaper articles published in 8 national newspapers between 1 September and 1 November 2015, however, shows that the press reacted in a highly transgressive manner to the new leader of the opposition, hence our reference to the attackdog metaphor.

Our analysis shows that Corbyn was thoroughly delegitimised as a political actor from the moment he became a prominent candidate and even more so after he was elected as party leader, with a strong mandate. This process of delegitimisation occurred in several ways: 1) through lack of or distortion of voice; 2) through ridicule, scorn and personal attacks; and 3) through association, mainly with terrorism.

All this raises, in our view, a number of pressing ethical questions regarding the role of the media in a democracy. Certainly, democracies need their media to challenge power and offer robust debate, but when this transgresses into an antagonism that undermines legitimate political voices that dare to contest the current status quo, then it is not democracy that is served.

Full report in link.

http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/Mainstream-Media-Representations-of-Jeremy-Corbyn.aspx

So labour ban buzzfeed for a headline they isn't like, and May will only take prevetted questions.

Time that the journalists turned against these political light weights.



That's straight talking for you eh?  Report exactly what he said and get banned!

It's another day in Corbynland. Start the day with a launch and the promise of a new exciting policy. Parachute in a Corbynite to a safe seat, then get into a row and ban Buzzfeed for actually reporting what he says.

Brilliant media management - take a story that would have been forgotten by most in a day or two and turn it into one about his media style, his honesty, banning the press and of course opening up the question: 'so what is the answer?... are you going or stay

Journalistic Representations of Jeremy Corbyn in the British Press - London School of Economics

This research project provides a sound and theoretically informed analysis of the various (or unison) media representations of the rise of Jeremy Corbyn as a candidate for the Labour leadership and of him as the new leader of the largest opposition party in the UK. Furthermore, this project also aims to make a contribution to the ongoing public debate regarding the role of mainstream media and of journalists in a media-saturated democracy.

We set out to recognise and acknowledge the legitimate role of the press to critique and challenge the powers that be, which is often encapsulated by the metaphor of the watchdog. Our systematic content analysis of a representative sample of newspaper articles published in 8 national newspapers between 1 September and 1 November 2015, however, shows that the press reacted in a highly transgressive manner to the new leader of the opposition, hence our reference to the attackdog metaphor.

Our analysis shows that Corbyn was thoroughly delegitimised as a political actor from the moment he became a prominent candidate and even more so after he was elected as party leader, with a strong mandate. This process of delegitimisation occurred in several ways: 1) through lack of or distortion of voice; 2) through ridicule, scorn and personal attacks; and 3) through association, mainly with terrorism.

All this raises, in our view, a number of pressing ethical questions regarding the role of the media in a democracy. Certainly, democracies need their media to challenge power and offer robust debate, but when this transgresses into an antagonism that undermines legitimate political voices that dare to contest the current status quo, then it is not democracy that is served.

Full report in link.

http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/Mainstream-Media-Representations-of-Jeremy-Corbyn.aspx

This was 'demon eyes' Tony Blair poster from 1997:



Labour win by a landslide.

It's an Enoch Powell quote but true nonetheless - 'a politician complaining about the press is like a sailor complaining about the sea'.

Corbyn has so much baggage it's no good complaining when his enemies use it to discredit him. It was bound to happen.

[Rob Dylan]

They need to stop listening to his words and hear what is in his heart. #trumpesque

As with Trump, the media need to take him seriously, but not literally. Whereas they're currently taking him literally, but not seriously. Or something.

[SP]

Journalistic Representations of Jeremy Corbyn in the British Press - London School of Economics

This research project provides a sound and theoretically informed analysis of the various (or unison) media representations of the rise of Jeremy Corbyn as a candidate for the Labour leadership and of him as the new leader of the largest opposition party in the UK. Furthermore, this project also aims to make a contribution to the ongoing public debate regarding the role of mainstream media and of journalists in a media-saturated democracy.

We set out to recognise and acknowledge the legitimate role of the press to critique and challenge the powers that be, which is often encapsulated by the metaphor of the watchdog. Our systematic content analysis of a representative sample of newspaper articles published in 8 national newspapers between 1 September and 1 November 2015, however, shows that the press reacted in a highly transgressive manner to the new leader of the opposition, hence our reference to the attackdog metaphor.

Our analysis shows that Corbyn was thoroughly delegitimised as a political actor from the moment he became a prominent candidate and even more so after he was elected as party leader, with a strong mandate. This process of delegitimisation occurred in several ways: 1) through lack of or distortion of voice; 2) through ridicule, scorn and personal attacks; and 3) through association, mainly with terrorism.

All this raises, in our view, a number of pressing ethical questions regarding the role of the media in a democracy. Certainly, democracies need their media to challenge power and offer robust debate, but when this transgresses into an antagonism that undermines legitimate political voices that dare to contest the current status quo, then it is not democracy that is served.

Full report in link.

http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/Mainstream-Media-Representations-of-Jeremy-Corbyn.aspx

Try reading the full report.

http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/pdf/JeremyCorbyn/Cobyn-Report.pdf

The number of articles about Corbyn without direct Corbyn quotes is one notable feature. But that may well be self-inflicted, the tales of missed deadlines responding to media queries are legion.

The 8 papers reviewed were:

The Sun, Express, Mail, Telegraph, Standard, Independent, Mirror and Guardian.

The first 5 are all right wing, so they printed lots of antagonistic stories. In other news water is wet. In the Mirror and the Guardian there were less than 5% antagonistic and around 20% positive with the majority neutral.

This is not a great conspiracy, this is the newspaper landscape as it has been for the last 40 years.
 

[Peabee]

"It's always been like that, get over it" isn't a good argument.  We've had a Tory government for most of my life, and if there's evidence of the scales being tipped in their favour, then it should be discussed and debated. 

[Peabee]

It's another day in Corbynland. Start the day with a launch and the promise of a new exciting policy. Parachute in a Corbynite to a safe seat, then get into a row and ban Buzzfeed for actually reporting what he says.

Brilliant media management - take a story that would have been forgotten by most in a day or two and turn it into one about his media style, his honesty, banning the press and of course opening up the question: 'so what is the answer?... are you going or stay
This was 'demon eyes' Tony Blair poster from 1997:



Labour win by a landslide.

It's an Enoch Powell quote but true nonetheless - 'a politician complaining about the press is like a sailor complaining about the sea'.

Corbyn has so much baggage it's no good complaining when his enemies use it to discredit him. It was bound to happen.

You're quoting the far-right, racist, fascist Enoch Powell.  Wow.

[Robinred]

I haven't a clue mate. 

Maybe some sort of political alliance of the left and centre-left?   

I think that's a fairly accurate description of the traditional Labour Party's notion of a "broad church".

[TravisBickle]

"It's always been like that, get over it" isn't a good argument.  We've had a Tory government for most of my life, and if there's evidence of the scales being tipped in their favour, then it should be discussed and debated.

 Well if it isn't a good argument, what's the alternative? To make the press print something else? Everyone knows full well the scales are tipped in their grubby favour. It isn't a case of getting over it but of getting around it.

 Jeremy Corbyn has shown no ability to do such a thing. He's barely even shown a desire to.

[CornerFlag]

You're quoting the far-right, racist, fascist Enoch Powell.  Wow.

Yeah, I thought quoting "right-wing Tories" was above members of the board to make their point.

http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=327632.msg14796110#msg14796110

[SP]

"It's always been like that, get over it" isn't a good argument.  We've had a Tory government for most of my life, and if there's evidence of the scales being tipped in their favour, then it should be discussed and debated. 

But the argument being made is that Corbyn has exceptionally harshly treated. A study concluding that right wing papers are not very nice to Labour leaders and that the Guardian and Mirror are more balanced is not exactly earth shattering. Newspapers are not objective and are not required to be. People choice their paper to mirror their world view. 

It is not a Corbyn issue, it is an issue that all Labour leaders face. Of course some leaders are media competent and are able to generate their own positive stories even in the more hostile end of the press.

But it is the free choice of the people. If the Morning Star reflected more people's views, they would sell more papers and become a more dominant media player.

If people wanted  more left wing papers, someone would fill the niche. More right wing papers are sold, because paper buyers like voters who actually vote tend to be an older demographic.

Now there are measures that could be implemented to remedy false stories, but by and large I would want those more for non-politicians. Politicians have a platform to respond to any allegations, they are in less need of protection.

Freedom of choice and market forces have given us the current landscape. Moaning about it may play well with the faithful, but it is a huge turn off for those outside the party that need to be persuaded now.

[Danny Boys Dad]

I'm not sure whether Corbyn has it any worse than Michael Foot or Neil Kinnock did, particularly Kinnock with the 'turn out the lights' headline. They really had it in for him.

[SP]

Yeah, I thought quoting "right-wing Tories" was above members of the board to make their point.

http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=327632.msg14796110#msg14796110

Enoch Powell was an interesting man. Brilliant, but not much humanity. He was utterly wrong about race, but outside of that, anything he has to say was worth listening to. I would not agree with most of it, but it was worth listening to.

[Peabee]

A 'brilliant' man who advised Churchill to declare martial law in India, who spoke several languages yet couldn't understand any other culture but his own.  A man who loved war.  A man who used intellectualism to disguise fascism.  A man who incited hate and attacks on non-whites in the streets.  A scared little man clinging on to the coat-tails of the empire.   

But let's quote him because that particular quote fits in with our bias. 

[alonsoisared]

Well if it isn't a good argument, what's the alternative? To make the press print something else? Everyone knows full well the scales are tipped in their grubby favour. It isn't a case of getting over it but of getting around it.

 Jeremy Corbyn has shown no ability to do such a thing. He's barely even shown a desire to.

Do they though? This thread has always been about how Corbyn doesn't have it in him to win over Joe Public, does Joe Public know  when they read their newspaper that there is an agenda against him and his party? They don't have a clue and soak up whatever information they're fed.

At the end of the day it's an unfair advantage that has haunted Labour for years and will continue to do so until something is done about it. Newspapers are influencing elections with biased reporting; I don't understand why that should just be ignored.

[SP]

A 'brilliant' man who advised Churchill to declare martial law in India, who spoke several languages yet couldn't understand any other culture but his own.  A man who loved war.  A man who used intellectualism to disguise fascism.  A man who incited hate and attacks on non-whites in the streets.  A scared little man clinging on to the coat-tails of the empire.   

But let's quote him because that particular quote fits in with our bias. 

That particular quote was appropriate in the context of the discussion. Powell's dubious past is irrelevant to the appropriateness of the quote.  Your rebuttal has a whiff of the ad homs about it.

[bigbonedrawky]

If only Corbyn and co bent over for the likes of Murdock, ( like all the charismatic leaders have done ) Labour wouldn't be getting half the flak it does...Not going to happen though.   

 

[TepidT2O]

If only Corbyn and co bent over for the likes of Murdock, ( like all the charismatic leaders have done ) Labour wouldn't be getting half the flak it does...Not going to happen though.   

 

If only Corbyn hadn't banned a media outlet that appealed to its core demographic for printing the words he actually said and then lied about saying.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Try reading the full report.

http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/pdf/JeremyCorbyn/Cobyn-Report.pdf

The number of articles about Corbyn without direct Corbyn quotes is one notable feature. But that may well be self-inflicted, the tales of missed deadlines responding to media queries are legion.

The 8 papers reviewed were:

The Sun, Express, Mail, Telegraph, Standard, Independent, Mirror and Guardian.

The first 5 are all right wing, so they printed lots of antagonistic stories. In other news water is wet. In the Mirror and the Guardian there were less than 5% antagonistic and around 20% positive with the majority neutral.

This is not a great conspiracy, this is the newspaper landscape as it has been for the last 40 years.
 

I read the Guardian. I haven't got the figures, but I'd say that the majority of their Corbyn articles were negative (Or neutral with negative connotations)

[SP]

If only Corbyn and co bent over for the likes of Murdock, ( like all the charismatic leaders have done ) Labour wouldn't be getting half the flak it does...Not going to happen though.   

Talking to the press, and making sure that they have the responses that they need to do their jobs is not bending over, it is basic media management. Corbyn's press has been harsher that it needed to be because his media team have not met press release deadline. Their rebuttals of negative stories have been glacial in their response times allowing stories to be feed themselves and become the dominant news item of the day, rather than just being squashed. Even simple things like providing interviewees to the media following his conference speech eludes them, allowing a critic from the Labour party to have that prime contextualising spot instead. There are papers that will favour the Tories, but even they will print your stories if you hand them to them on a plate.

There is a path between surly hostility and genuflection to Murdoch. It would have had much better press coverage. But it would also have entailed a professional approach to running the Opposition.

[Sangria]

I read the Guardian. I haven't got the figures, but I'd say that the majority of their Corbyn articles were negative (Or neutral with negative connotations)

Paul Mason and Owen Jones (especially Jones) are two of their more frequent opinion piece writers.

[SP]

I read the Guardian. I haven't got the figures, but I'd say that the majority of their Corbyn articles were negative (Or neutral with negative connotations)

Reading the graph roughly:

18%  positive
52% neutral
27% critical
3% antagonistic

The majority were neutral.

You could equally claim that the majority were neutral or positive. The way you phrased it is spinning the stats. The definition of critical, also is not a bad thing. It is the role of the press to be critical and scrutinise politicians.

The 3% antagonistic can probably be explained by Comment is Free articles. They do print a wide range of viewpoints - including Milne and Mason.

[TepidT2O]

I read the Guardian. I haven't got the figures, but I'd say that the majority of their Corbyn articles were negative (Or neutral with negative connotations)

Could that not just be because he's shit?

If there isn't positive stuff to say then how can you say it?