|
baka kaba posted:^^^ it means a symbolic hero who's expected to ride in and save the day I know what the cliché normally means, but this use doesn't really make much sense. Presumably Corbyn is the one currently riding the charger, except that in this context he's being talked about as a failure, not a hero. And why "physically" change, especially in reference to a metaphorical rider? And then, what is physically changing the rider on a white charger a shortcut to? And then later we're not talking about riders any more but heads, which we're going to chop off and replace with new heads. Are the heads still on a white charger? Clive Lewis is seen as a potential Labour leader, can we really trust someone who can't even keep a simple literary device straight for a few sentences to run the country's largest political party? If we have to live in a political farce, then it could at least have the decency to be a well written one.
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 11:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 14:04 |
|
|
Paxman posted:She sees the idea that Labour were actually poo poo when they were last in government nationally as a weapon she can use to convince people they would also be poo poo if they won the mayoral elections in May. This is one of the reasons it's important to challenge the idea that the last Labour government was bad. As well as being untrue, it helps the Tories. Well that's fair enough but if you take the last little infighting Labour had about New Labours legacy the Corbyn crowd was saying things like the Iraq war and PFI projects were bad and we shouldn't do them and the Tom Watson was making speeches saying they shouldn't apologise for anything. New Labour has become overly representative of the two sides in the Labour Party but people who still talk about how awesome they were are just going to get shredded from all angles.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 11:24
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:goon in "shut in with no knowledge of popular music" shocker that song is older than a lot of people in this thread, old man.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 11:26
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:goon in "shut in with no knowledge of popular music" shocker What an absolute piece of poo poo!
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 11:28
|
|
|
Baron Corbyn posted:that song is older than a lot of people in this thread, old man. So is Hitler but we've all heard of Hitler.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 11:33
|
|
|
Paxman posted:She sees the idea that Labour were actually poo poo when they were last in government nationally as a weapon she can use to convince people they would also be poo poo if they won the mayoral elections in May. This is one of the reasons it's important to challenge the idea that the last Labour government was bad. As well as being untrue, it helps the Tories. At all costs? Because the people who want to replace Corbyn are extremely comfortable with the idea of embracing those 'Labour did all the bad things' ideas, using an admission of guilt and a move towards Tory policies as a mark of 'being a serious and credible party'. The Labour 'moderates' etc want to cut borrowing and enact cuts, they want 'controls on immigration', all because the public accepts the narrative that Labour got those issues wrong and caused all the problems. By supporting them, you're supporting an acceptance of those ideas, and also a push rightwards to actively 'fix our mistakes' Because that's the issue here. Copeland has been losing Labour support for decades - why is that? Jeremy Corbyn didn't turn it around, but he sure didn't cause a sudden change by badmouthing New Labour or anything. People have been losing confidence in the party for a long time, because of local conditions and because of the party's public image, during and after the Blair government. Trying to pretend that they actually had things great won't win people over. Trying to pretend that everything was actually fine and that Jeremy Corbyn lost a cast-iron sure thing and needs to go won't help Labour's public standing What you need is party unity, on-message and making a case that a) the Tories are poo poo and b) voting Labour in the future will be good for you. And both of those things mean acknowledging the issues that have led to the current situation (not pretending they don't exist and that people won't notice what you're doing) and moving forward from there
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 11:38
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:. People have been losing confidence in the party for a long time, because of local conditions and because of the party's public image, during and after the Blair government. Trying to pretend that they actually had things great won't win people over. Trying to pretend that everything was actually fine and that Jeremy Corbyn lost a cast-iron sure thing and needs to go won't help Labour's public standing I'll have you know tony blair won elections against a vampire and also murderer-in-chief of the poor while losing 3 million voters who aren't coming back so he's clearly a political behemoth and not a farcical reminder that the bar for being good at speeches is low af
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 11:41
|
|
|
seriously though even skimming Cicero's oratories make blair sound like a loving robot he can do two things. He can use the rule of three and he can wave his hands. He's not a good speaker, he's just highlighting the total illiteracy of the political class.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 11:42
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:I know what the cliché normally means, but this use doesn't really make much sense. Presumably Corbyn is the one currently riding the charger, except that in this context he's being talked about as a failure, not a hero. And why "physically" change, especially in reference to a metaphorical rider? And then, what is physically changing the rider on a white charger a shortcut to? And then later we're not talking about riders any more but heads, which we're going to chop off and replace with new heads. Are the heads still on a white charger? What? The point is the idea of this magical hero who can save the day is stupid. Sticking a new guy on the horse and going 'now we have the hero we need!' won't change anything, because there are deep underlying issues that can't simply be fixed overnight by one person Yeah the head-replacing thing is awkward but who cares, it's pretty clear what the meaning is I think? At least he sounds like he's making an argument on the spot instead of reading some carefully prepared remarks
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 11:48
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:seriously though even skimming Cicero's oratories make blair sound like a loving robot Maybe Jeremy could ask him for some lessons?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 11:48
|
|
|
Tory party can simply point at labour and go "Blair caused all this with his war. Lib dems were not a strong enough political partner and our last leader bailed in a petulant huff after brexit, but look how strong May's new government is. We are now a competent party capable of getting things done, including holding out own against the mean and nasty Germans" Labour can go "Blair caused all this with his war? We will fight May over brexit even though our own voter base voted to leave...Um...Corbyn has a nice beard?"
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 11:49
|
|
|
The Tory party never mention the Iraq war, probably because they support it. The only people who do mention it are those desperate to talk about the past rather than labour's problems today.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 11:50
|
|
|
They don't need to talk about the war when the Tory Press can bang on about how Blair deceived parliament and his own cabinet, implying that if the Tory party had all the facts and knew that the chemical weapons report was made up then they would never have voted for it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 11:53
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Maybe Jeremy could ask him for some lessons? Corbyn is a better speaker, sorry. Maybe go to his rallies. It's only on TV he looks like poo poo because he just won't employ the soundbyte ad nauseum tactic. This is the fault of the media for willfully obstructing any attempt at a wider discourse and if you disagree your world isn't worth saving anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 11:55
|
|
|
learnincurve posted:They don't need to talk about the war when the Tory Press can bang on about how Blair deceived parliament and his own cabinet, implying that if the Tory party had all the facts and knew that the chemical weapons report was made up then they would never have voted for it. Does that happen or are you imagining something that could happen?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 11:56
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:The Tory party never mention the Iraq war, probably because they support it. Things that happened in that past can effect what's going on today! News at 11! vv: Also no, he's actually a very good speaker. You can watch any of his myriad speeches on youtube ad see that. He was especially great when questioned if he felt under pressure from the last leadership coup. Kokoro Wish fucked around with this message at 11:59 on Feb 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 11:57
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:Corbyn is a better speaker, sorry. Maybe go to his rallies. It's only on TV he looks like poo poo because he just won't employ the soundbyte ad nauseum tactic. This is the fault of the media for willfully obstructing any attempt at a wider discourse and if you disagree your world isn't worth saving anyway. I love this post.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 11:57
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:What? The point is the idea of this magical hero who can save the day is stupid. Sticking a new guy on the horse and going 'now we have the hero we need!' won't change anything, because there are deep underlying issues that can't simply be fixed overnight by one person Metaphor should illuminate an argument through insightful comparison or clarify a point by analogy. To clumsily misuse a cliché does neither, it obscures and confuses the issue instead. You see it all the time in political speech, politicians relying on bad metaphor to try and bypass actually making an argument rather than just using plain language to set out clear points. I was mostly just making a stupid Yes, Minister reference, but it would be nice to see better use of rhetoric rather than trying to get mileage out of clapped-out literary vehicles.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 12:00
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Does that happen or are you imagining something that could happen? You don't read the Tory press do you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 12:00
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:I love this post. So do I, because it's true. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPfUd6g4fIw
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 12:01
|
|
|
New York Times and CNN now banned from the white house press pool. Edit: oh gently caress. Also the BBC, the guardian and the daily mail.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 12:02
|
|
|
Given that the media is to blame for misrepresenting Corbyn surely many of you will sympathise with Trump on this?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 12:05
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:Corbyn is a better speaker, sorry. Maybe go to his rallies. It's only on TV he looks like poo poo because he just won't employ the soundbyte ad nauseum tactic. This is the fault of the media for willfully obstructing any attempt at a wider discourse and if you disagree your world isn't worth saving anyway. Suppose this is true. If Corbyn is actually capable of being comprehensible and persuasive on the telly, why won't he just do it? Im guessing from what you said that the soundbite ad nauseum tactic is something Corbyn dissaproves of or at least prefers not to use for some reason. But even if it is, why not compromise on the issue of how he talks in TV interviews if its going to help him save the NHS?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 12:08
|
|
|
learnincurve posted:They don't need to talk about the war when the Tory Press can bang on about how Blair deceived parliament and his own cabinet, implying that if the Tory party had all the facts and knew that the chemical weapons report was made up then they would never have voted for it. I don't think people are voting on whether they hate or love the Iraq war, more like "how have things been going, right here, up until now". And "here's what I think is to blame - which party do I think is going to do something about it?" The trouble is Labour heartlands have been suffering from lack of investment and economic problems for a long time, and two of the biggest narratives the Tories bang on are "Labour crashed the economy and wasted money so now we have to make cuts, but we're the serious party who'll make things right" and "there are too many immigrants and that's why there are no local jobs and why public services are stretched" So you have areas in real need of change, who are being offered a lot of easy pandering answers by the Tories (and UKIP) and reasons not to trust Labour. And a big part of that problem is people believing those narratives and not realising where the blame really lies. And this is absolutely a problem with Corbyn's Labour, that that message just isn't getting out there, but it's in no way limited to his tenure - he didn't get us where we are today. And like I said before, Labour in the past has been happy to perpetuate those lies, believing that if they confess to all the bad things they can me-too on the Tory policies and people will suddenly be happy to vote for them. That kind of thing is a massive gamble and it sure didn't pay off in 2015 big scary monsters posted:Metaphor should illuminate an argument through insightful comparison or clarify a point by analogy. To clumsily misuse a cliché does neither, it obscures and confuses the issue instead. You see it all the time in political speech, politicians relying on bad metaphor to try and bypass actually making an argument rather than just using plain language to set out clear points. I dunno, like I said it seemed clear to me and the analogy felt like it was meant to be awkward, in the sense of 'this is the simplistic fantasy cliche people's attitudes seem to mirror and it just doesn't work like that in reality', but whatever 
baka kaba fucked around with this message at 12:15 on Feb 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 12:09
|
|
|
Thinking about it, now not only Thatcher is dead, but a lot of the ex-miners and so on who will never vote Tory because they can't just loving let it go are also dead, there are no longer any Labour safe seats at all. Edit: life expectancy of miners and steel workers is really low, iirc it's 62.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 12:17
|
|
|
Paxman posted:Suppose this is true. If Corbyn is actually capable of being comprehensible and persuasive on the telly, why won't he just do it? Im guessing from what you said that the soundbite ad nauseum tactic is something Corbyn dissaproves of or at least prefers not to use for some reason. But even if it is, why not compromise on the issue of how he talks in TV interviews if its going to help him save the NHS? yeah he should compromise but it's probably more important we crush the life out of rupert murdoch and eradicate his existence from history and, though he's clearly not succeeding, I'm glad he's having a crack. Soundbyte ad naeseum is where a politician literally repeats the same thing over and over regardless of what they're asked. It's a great way to get past a journalist who clearly doesn't think the actual question is worth the effort (because they're a hack). Corbyn made a huge point of this before his first election by trashing krishnan guru-murthy on live TV and it was a big poll boost for him. I don't think that's why he's doing it, I just think he's stubborn as all hell. Pissflaps posted:Given that the media is to blame for misrepresenting Corbyn surely many of you will sympathise with Trump on this? no? if corbyn had the softball media treatment trump did right up until he secured the republican presidency he'd have done much better. People literally just let him speak with the joke being "haha what an rear end in a top hat amirite" and it backfired horribly. Corbyn never had that option; even before he's begun his first campaign in the mentioned KGM interview, it's only by shouting down the journalist that Corbyn is allowed to present his actual opinion. If your opinion fits in a single soundbyte you should not be allowed to be part of a democratic system.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 12:19
|
|
|
I don't think Corbyn's had as big a blowjob as the Jimmy Fallon interview with Trump in his life
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 12:22
|
|
|
Paxman posted:Suppose this is true. If Corbyn is actually capable of being comprehensible and persuasive on the telly, why won't he just do it? Im guessing from what you said that the soundbite ad nauseum tactic is something Corbyn dissaproves of or at least prefers not to use for some reason. But even if it is, why not compromise on the issue of how he talks in TV interviews if its going to help him save the NHS?  (I think i could manage that btw, im a right conniving bastard, vote for me) Seaside Loafer fucked around with this message at 12:27 on Feb 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 12:25
|
|
|
learnincurve posted:Thinking about it, now not only Thatcher is dead, but a lot of the ex-miners and so on who will never vote Tory because they can't just loving let it go are also dead, there are no longer any Labour safe seats at all. I didn't quote it because it was ages back and I was catching up, but someone was talking about how it's bad to base the idea of a 'safe seat' on the size of a party's majority, because then it could move between 'safe' and 'unsafe' and that would 'make no sense' I honestly don't get that line of thinking - a seat should be 'safe' if it comfortably goes for a single party each time. If that becomes threatened, like when the majority drops to dangerous levels, then it doesn't make sense to call it safe anymore. Who cares if it technically hasn't changed sides for decades, it's not like chances of losing it decrease the longer you hold it or anything, either it's currently at risk or it isn't
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 12:26
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:no? if corbyn had the softball media treatment trump did right up until he secured the republican presidency he'd have done much better. Trump and his supporters have been complaining about the media since long before he became president.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 12:27
|
|
|
I think, this might be bad for corbyn
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 12:29
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Trump and his supporters have been complaining about the media since long before he became president. saying something is true doesn't make it true if you want to argue the british media aren't tabloid hacks go ahead Pissflaps posted:To be clear: you don't think it's true that Trump was anti-media before he became prwsident? you've lost the argument and are trying to spin it, much like a hack. We're done here. Spangly A fucked around with this message at 12:35 on Feb 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 12:32
|
|
|
I enjoyed BBC News' regular feature where they brought an American on to be interviewed about their latest movie or whatever, then halfway into the interview they got them to spend five minutes explaining why Trump would be the worst president. It was pretty much a weekly thing from about August. E: Sorry it wasn't relevant to the conversation but I wanted to say it anyway. HJB fucked around with this message at 12:38 on Feb 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 12:34
|
|
I can't get enough of are Dan
|
Spangly A posted:saying something is true doesn't make it true To be clear: you don't think it's true that Trump was anti-media before he became prwsident?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 12:35
|
|
|
Ive had a great fascination with the american howard stern radio show going back to 2002 when I first joined SA and there are some fantastic clips being youtubed at the moment. He was a regular guest and his true personality comes through, this stuff is from the nineties and 00's and is rampant megalomania and sexism of the highest order. Long story short the man is a loving maniac and he currently rules the world.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 12:35
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Trump and his supporters have been complaining about the media since long before he became president.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 12:37
|
|
|
Seaside Loafer posted:Trump complains about anything as vocally as possible, he is a nutter. Youre not wrong.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 12:40
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:I didn't quote it because it was ages back and I was catching up, but someone was talking about how it's bad to base the idea of a 'safe seat' on the size of a party's majority, because then it could move between 'safe' and 'unsafe' and that would 'make no sense' Safe seats are also meaningless because the boomers are dying off. 69 is the average life expectancy of a man of that generation and someone born in 1946 is 71.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 12:42
|
|
|
Paxman posted:Suppose this is true. If Corbyn is actually capable of being comprehensible and persuasive on the telly, why won't he just do it? Im guessing from what you said that the soundbite ad nauseum tactic is something Corbyn dissaproves of or at least prefers not to use for some reason. But even if it is, why not compromise on the issue of how he talks in TV interviews if its going to help him save the NHS? The flip side of going for that approach is appearing to not answer questions, being evasive, and doing all the things we take the piss out of other politicians doing in interviews. If he's just going to appear like other politicians on the TV, rather than someone who wants to give considered and honest answers, then there's a lot of authenticity to be lost there. I share the oft-repeated disappointment that the flood of non-voters hasn't materialised, but a large part of his personal appeal to his base rests on his authenticity. big scary monsters posted:Clive Lewis is seen as a potential Labour leader, can we really trust someone who can't even keep a simple literary device straight for a few sentences to run the country's largest political party? If we have to live in a political farce, then it could at least have the decency to be a well written one. I got the gist of what he was saying, but I think we need to be comfortable with this if we want to have a broad range of people representing us in parliament. There will be a correlation between the people who never gently caress up metaphors in public speaking and those whose schools had debating societies, public speaking competitions and a pathway to prestigious universities. It's a problem for the direction of politics, especially if politicians that we might consider to be authentic voices of the working class then get described by the public as 'a bit charity shop', or are not taken as seriously because they have accents or don't use big words.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 12:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 14:04 |
|
|
Corbyn's 'base' is tiny and doesnt necessarily vote labour or want a labour government. Appealing to them is a waste of time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 12:47
|
|