|
jBrereton posted:That may as well be Suez at this point for people in their twenties. Yeah OK it was sad or whatever right but the last Labour government that was in charge of it was 7 years ago. I'm in my twenties and I care about the Iraq war? It was poo poo and was the biggest geopolitical turning point of recent years.
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 15:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 14:32 |
|
|
sebzilla posted:Better and cheaper public transport (nationalisation) It's being said loads but the papers people read don't publish it and it never gets traction. How do you suppose that these policies (which are all actual ones as well) get publicised?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 15:55
|
|
|
yes, but - this is what the median voter wants to know - are you really going to do that*, or are you going to tax us more and then give it away to layabouts whilst pleading for the human rights of homegrown terrorists * the bits they like. you may assume, as with other large infrastructure projects, that their attitude will change sharply once the plans are closer to being realised
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 15:56
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 15:56
|
|
|
ronya posted:yes, but - this is what the median voter wants to know - are you really going to do that*, or are you going to tax us more and then give it away to layabouts whilst pleading for the human rights of homegrown terrorists It would help if the media wasn't constantly lying that those two things were secretly the biggest part of the budget, and/or if people were sceptical enough to go "Hang on a minute, how do you live on £140 a week?" instead of immediately believing the government gives you a mansion and a mercedes if you're a layabout terrorist serial killer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 15:59
|
|
|
Taear posted:It's being said loads but the papers people read don't publish it and it never gets traction. How do you suppose that these policies (which are all actual ones as well) get publicised? Write them in fifteen foot high letters on the side of Westminister Palace with the blood of Tories.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 15:59
|
|
|
J_RBG posted:And I presume your role in all this is merely to shout encouraging words from the sidelines
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 15:59
|
|
|
spectralent posted:I'm in my twenties and I care about the Iraq war? It was poo poo and was the biggest geopolitical turning point of recent years.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 16:00
|
|
|
i have only ever voted labour in a (((safe))) tory seat, i am ideologically pure
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 16:01
|
|
|
ronya posted:yes, but - this is what the median voter wants to know - are you really going to do that*, or are you going to tax us more and then give it away to layabouts whilst pleading for the human rights of homegrown terrorists Nationalising stuff that's profitable will bring in more money on it's own. As will most of the other things I listed. Fiscal multipliers are fancy words for things that people already know, so let's go "national credit card" style reductive arguments on it all. "You gotta spend money to make money, common sense 'innit." spectralent posted:It would help if the media wasn't constantly lying that those two things were secretly the biggest part of the budget, and/or if people were sceptical enough to go "Hang on a minute, how do you live on £140 a week?" instead of immediately believing the government gives you a mansion and a mercedes if you're a layabout terrorist serial killer. And yes, publish real figures on expenditure and spend some energy countering the narrative of lies rather than limply going along with it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 16:04
|
|
|
Taear posted:It's being said loads but the papers people read don't publish it and it never gets traction. How do you suppose that these policies (which are all actual ones as well) get publicised? It's not. People have to stop kidding themselves that Labour are running brilliant campaigns but the media refuses to report it. NB I'm not saying the media are good, I'm saying Labour aren't running the campaigns. When Corbyn makes a big speech and says something interesting, it often gets coverage. When he spoke about doing something about the wages gap, it got coverage. But a lot of the time there's just silence. And when Labour does go on a publicity drive, it's often incoherent. I mean, here in this thread we get into earnest debates where people who actually support Corbyn can't agree what he actually meant on a speech or an interview they all heard.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 16:08
|
|
|
"I'm going to take profitable British businesses and give the money to layabouts" is not a winning idea either nationalization was historically popular when it was associated with government-underwritten capital spending
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
sebzilla posted:So once again it comes back to Labour lacking anything close to a coherent set of headline policies for people to latch on to. Simple but popular goals that can be shouted about over and over until they sink in and the voting public begin to think that perhaps there is an option beyond "more of this poo poo forever" or "this but with a smiley face" or "this but with a pint and a fag and no browns" The problem is that these are all pretty old ideas. Nationalise, tax more, spend more on public services, raise minimum wage is what it boils down to. Labour proposing that thing isn't news. The new fad is for the Big Headline Idea. Labour basically need the equivalent of Build A Wall And Make Mexico Pay For It.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
Fangz posted:The problem is that these are all pretty old ideas. Nationalise, tax more, spend more on public services, raise minimum wage is what it boils down to. Labour proposing that thing isn't news. The new fad is for the Big Headline Idea. Labour basically need the equivalent of Build A Wall And Make Mexico Pay For It. Build A Functional Society And Make Poshos Pay For It
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 16:10
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:What guff is this? The SNP has the support of The National and The Sunday Herald and some assortment of websites like Wings Over Scotland. Meanwhile Labour has The Daily Record, whose circulation is over 10 times that of The National, the Daily Mirror. Without getting into other papers like The Scotsman and Press & Journal which are not necessarily pro-Labour but certainly are anti-SNP. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 16:11
|
|
|
sebzilla posted:Build A Functional Society And Make Poshos Pay For It The point is that it's a smattering of little things, most of it reactive. Much of it is also what the Tories say they are going to do, so Labour's only really saying 'we'll do it better'. Fangz fucked around with this message at 16:19 on Feb 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 16:13
|
|
|
Going back a few pages but don't trust betting sites for predicting the next Labour leader. David Miliband has consistently been one of the favourites on betting sites for the past five years despite being ineligible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
Just bribe the Daily Mail to run articles like "Could supporting SOCIALISM improve your ARTHRITIS?" or something
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 16:33
|
|
|
It's definitely true that Corbyn's media strategy has been abysmal, though how much you can put that down to him and how much is up to the incompetence of Seamus Milne is another matter for debate. Its clear that they haven't got the message about picking a message and hammering on it though - it seems there have been some tentative forays and then backtracks pretty much immediately. I do wonder if any of that is to do with appeasing the PLP and the more right-wing elements of the party, but that's just conjecture. There have definitely been multiple occassion of media silence totally changing the narrative on Corbyn though; look at how pervasive the "Corbyn didn't campaign hard enough for Remain" myth is despite him racking up the third most appearances of any figure for Remain (notably more than the Lib Dems). That's pretty much entirely due to the media.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 16:36
|
|
|
Pochoclo posted:Just bribe the Daily Mail to run articles like "Could supporting SOCIALISM improve your ARTHRITIS?" or something BOFFINS SAY: FUNDING THE NHS CURES CANCER
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 16:37
|
|
|
Corbyn didn't do enough for the Remain campaign.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 16:38
|
|
|
Apparently you can't block Cathy Brennan on facebook? Wtf? https://twitter.com/TransEthics/status/835077252253540352/photo/1
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
lmao, what the hell?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
What possible reason is there not letting you block someone?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
We're going to have a revolution and make the bourgeoisie pay for it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
Baron Corbyn posted:What possible reason is there not letting you block someone? Might be that too many people have blocked her already?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
Especially someone you might really want to block, as they've been going around doxxing trans people who might not be out and actively endangering them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 16:48
|
|
|
We're going to hang the capitalists but they'll make us pay for the rope 
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 16:48
|
|
|
mfcrocker posted:Might be that too many people have blocked her already? I don't follow that logic. If too many people are blocking her, surely they should assume she's the problem?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
I went to her fb page to check, and while I did have the option to block her, check this poo poo out. nasty trans bullies not wanting to be doxxed, how dare they
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 16:51
|
|
|
She "uses her knowledge of the law" to get trans people kicked off of facebook? I thought she just used their own T&Cs and behaving like a massive babby and filing false reports to get trans people kicked off of facebook.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 16:57
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:She "uses her knowledge of the law" to get trans people kicked off of facebook? I thought she just used their own T&Cs and behaving like a massive babby and filing false reports to get trans people kicked off of facebook. I don't know, maybe she's sued for defamation or something? In any case I tried to follow through blocking and it won't let me. So many questions...
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 16:59
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:There have definitely been multiple occassion of media silence totally changing the narrative on Corbyn though; look at how pervasive the "Corbyn didn't campaign hard enough for Remain" myth is despite him racking up the third most appearances of any figure for Remain (notably more than the Lib Dems). That's pretty much entirely due to the media. Hasn't that been widely debunked? The misunderstanding was that the research said: quote:Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour party gained significantly higher levels of media coverage over the last week. Corbyn was the third most prominent politician over that period and Labour’s proportional presence rose from 10 to 22 percent. This is saying that Corbyn, in the final week of the referendum, was the third most often mentioned politician in the UK media. But that's not showing he campaigned strongly, an article asking "where the gently caress is Corbyn" counts as an appearance.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 17:02
|
|
|
I'm a Yank, but it seems erroneous to absolve Corbyn of blame for Copeland or to think that getting rid of Corbyn will solve every issue. With the mishandling of the Brexit, the evisceration of the NHS and May's dithering, the government should not be taking seats from the opposition. Fact is, New Labour left behind a lot of working class voters, and that is why the divide between the working class base and the technical elite leadership is so acute. It's not just Brexit or racism/xenophobia. There is a significant lack of trust that needs to be regained, and it's pretty evident that the JK Rowing wing of the party doesn't get that a boring beige New Labour centrist is going to excite the public mood. The problem to me is that Corbyn has subscribed to the "when they go low, we go high" approach that hurt the Hillary Clinton campaign. Labour needs a firebrand, not a soapy nice guy. With the populism sweeping the West, we need a bold and dynamic message and people with fires in their bellies, not effete lecturers or dull technocrats.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 17:03
|
|
|
Examples of 'Appearances' by Corbyn during the EU campaign:quote:How Jeremy Corbyn and Labour can still save the Remain campaign (The Telegraph, 13 June 2016)
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
Private Eye posted:But they started it isn't something we accept from children. lol. If you're going to complain about infighting in the party and assign blame for it then the question of who started said infighting is pretty goddamn germane. I mean, this ought to be obvious even if your grasp of explanations only reaches the ones we tell to children. Seriously, your master plan is angrily demanding that everybody who doesn't agree with you has to let you win by default, which is something that I haven't heard since primary school.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
Panama Red posted:The problem to me is that Corbyn has subscribed to the "when they go low, we go high" approach that hurt the Hillary Clinton campaign. He's gone for the "when they go low I make a face like I'm confused and angry before saying something incredibly pedantic and or stupid" approach.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Examples of 'Appearances' by Corbyn during the EU campaign: oooh, I'm a strong- well, certainly in the upper half. Maybe 7 or 8 out of ten.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 17:40
|
|
|
who is cathy brennon
Looke fucked around with this message at 17:52 on Feb 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 14:32 |
|
|
Sion posted:oooh, I'm a strong- well, certainly in the upper half. Maybe 7 or 8 out of ten. This shows that many critics of Corbyn are right when they say he needs to work on his messaging. All he needed to do was say: "I'm a 10 on keeping us in the EU. Maybe a 7 or 8 about how it is now, but it's best for us to stay in, and reform."
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 17:46
|
|
