UKMT July 2016 - Thank you very much. Do doooooo do do. Right.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > UKMT July 2016 - Thank you very much. Do doooooo do do. Right.

El Grillo: Jan 3, 2008; Fun Shoe

Mitsuo posted:

I think it's fair that not all the no-confidence-voting MPs were necessarily gung-ho about getting rid of Corbyn and instead just thought he was doomed and wanted to get in the good graces of the coup ringleaders so they didn't get unceremoniously purged.

Not exactly a paragon of virtue, but hey, it's one way out of the civil war. Just get rid of some of the key figures and see how many fall in line afterwards.

Well that and some of them seem to have just found it impossible to work with him (Debbonaire and Greenwood at least, if they're to be believed).

# ¿ Jul 25, 2016 16:35

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 17, 2024 22:36

El Grillo: Jan 3, 2008; Fun Shoe

OvineYeast posted:

OJ has an interview with Jeremy Corbyn:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGXVHHxxnZQ

Haven't watched it all yet but 45 mins of interview seems promising.

So this was pretty awful, and Jones looks visibly frustrated with the kind of delusions JC is coming back with. The social media stuff... he seems to genuinely believe that he can reach out to the wider electorate solely through social media posts and local radio stations. And when asked about the godawful polling, his response is 'the media is against me' and the PLP are the other culprits. Even Clive Lewis has mentioned a number of times now that the leadership has made mistakes.

Also his answer on whether he has a strategy to win back Scotland was 'Scottish Labour are working really hard'. gently caress.

e: it seems increasingly obvious that his team is keeping him in some kind of incredibly isolated bubble, keeping the bad news away and feeding him stuff like the LSE survey to justify his raciltrant attitude to the media and polling. There were reports of them telling reporters and MPs that they couldn't see him because he's 70 years old and is 'fragile'. This poo poo is hosed.

# ¿ Jul 29, 2016 15:24

El Grillo: Jan 3, 2008; Fun Shoe

sebzilla posted:

He never said he planned to work solely through social and/or local media. But it is a large part of the strategy. The traditional media "are" against him, and the ridiculous infighting from the PLP "has" demonstrably harmed the polling.

Corbyn is not immune to criticism but he's right on all of that.

Of course they're against him. That's why he needed to (a) have a seriously clear core message, to at least attempt to prevent huge distortions and (b) actually court the media. They started off pretty well with the latter - Nick Robinson said some nice things about his interview approach, and there were good reports of JC and McDonnell's performance at the Labour Christmas correspondents' do. But after more fuckups being reported, and more leaks by the PLP, they appear to have given up. Jeremy's increasingly appeared grumpy and affronted in interviews, and the number appears to have diminished rapidly (many programs are just saying they kept being turned down so much they don't bother asking anymore).

Owen pursues him on this point in the interview for a full 5 minutes and he continually evades. You literally cannot watch this segment and tell me JC is not fixated on this vain hope that social media is a magic answer to the huge problems he has with media presentation and strategy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGXVHHxxnZQ&t=1528s

# ¿ Jul 29, 2016 15:47

El Grillo: Jan 3, 2008; Fun Shoe

baka kaba posted:

Ok, but what mistakes are the general public basing their opinions on? We're not talking about people who work with him who have an opinion on how he's doing things, we're not even talking about people within his party who take notice of the internal politics. We're talking about people who, in general, get their picture of Corbyn and his leadership from media reports, if even that. And those reports have been heavily focused on Jeremy Corbyn's troubles and how all his MPs want to get rid of him. They've been leaking and plotting staged coups and generally using the media to undermine him publicly - that's the whole point, to hurt him and his public image and to make his position untenable

I agree, see above re: actually having a media strategy and a clear comprehensible core message that people can connect to. I'm not saying the media wouldn't still be against him, it's pretty likely they would be, but if you are not trying whatsoever, if you're not putting a message out at all, then all that remains is their point of view. At least defend yourself. Anything else is incompetence.

quote:

Someone (an MP who wasn't a Corbyn fan) said a long time ago that there's a problem here, that by blatantly attacking Corbyn instead of allowing him to fail on his own, his incompetence ends up masked by the overt sabotage. He ends up the victim of a campaign to ruin him, instead of showing himself to be incapable. And for all his flaws, that's pretty much what's happening here - there's such a big effort to undermine him and paint him as a danger to the party, from all sides really, but it's backfiring in terms of his core support in the party. People who are aware can see exactly what's happening. People who aren't aware, however, get the picture painted by the news, which is far from nuanced and objective

And besides, what leader would command a lot of public confidence if their MPs were trying to publicly overthrow them for months?

Yeah, again I quite agree. But again, see above - if you have no media message then you are going to get painted no matter what happens.
Of course some of the PLP have been utter shits. As Jeremy says in the interview, it's a minority who've really been stirring up trouble, at least up until the insanity of the 'coup'. What's perhaps most indicative are the died-in-the-wool socialists who were on his Shadow Cabinet and still resigned because of his incompetence and unelectability. Jones asks him about them here and his only response (as has been generally his only response to legitimate criticisms so far) is that he's 'disappointed'.

# ¿ Jul 29, 2016 15:56

El Grillo: Jan 3, 2008; Fun Shoe

NLJP posted:

If they were truly convinced he is incompetent, they would hand him enough rope to hang himself.

I wish this were the case, sadly they too are incompetent and thus the 'coup'.

Gato posted:

What kind of media strategy do you think he should adopt? There is literally nothing he can do to make the press favourable to him. Owen Smith seems to think there's some magic combination of sound bites he can deliver that won't result in a double-page spread in the Mail with the headline RED OWEN HATES YOUR COUNTRY, when last year's election should have been proof how that works.

They have made mistakes, and Clive Lewis can get away with pointing it out. There's no way Corbyn can admit to it with out it becoming 'COBYN ADMITS HE'S NOT FIT TO LEAD'

I don't think anyone is concerned about the Mail or the Sun. It's the BBC, maybe Sky, definitely at least the more middling broadsheets that have to be brought back from the brink. As I said above, at least do something. If you're not doing something you are admitting defeat. If you're admitting defeat, gently caress off out of the leadership (i.e. make a deal with the PLP to get someone more competent/acceptable in) and stop tearing up the joint for the sake of it, or for the fear of losing the political shift which your only rival has already openly accepted was your greatest achievement.

JFairfax posted:

the media are wilfully distorting his position, there's been an academic study which proves this.

he cannot make them report his views accurately because they simply do not want to.

I'm not saying he can, I'm saying if he's not able to try anymore, then go. There is no point in this party if the leadership has either simply resigned itself to defeat or split, or is so utterly delusional they think they can win despite every poll telling them they're up the shitter.

El Grillo fucked around with this message at 16:05 on Jul 29, 2016

# ¿ Jul 29, 2016 16:03

El Grillo: Jan 3, 2008; Fun Shoe

OvineYeast posted:

This was Tom Watson spreading poo poo fyi (according to Richard Seymour anyway)

As for the rest of it, he seems perfectly aware that there's a mountain to climb, that more members doesn't mean more activists, that you can't just reach out using social media, etc. etc. It's obvious he's thinking about the challenge and I think you're mistaking optimism for delusion.

OvineYeast posted:

Oops, sorry, got this wrong - that was the thing about him secretly wanting to resign but being stopped by McDonnell.

I don't think he's perfectly aware. If you take some of his answers from the interview in isolation, maybe that would be a reasonable conclusion. But when his answer on a Scotland strategy is nothing, when his only response to terrible polling is 'someone else's fault', and his ideas about how he can reach out to the wider electorate through social media really are delusional, then it surely must be realised that he doesn't have a clear picture of his situation.
He has made mistakes and performed badly, not just in a managerial sense with the PLP and shadow cabinet, but with his approach to the media, various gaffs, with his unwillingness to compromise on Trident (which he knows a large majority of the country, plus his own parliamentary party, are against him on), and with his generally unfocused and poor performances at PMQs. He's not admitted these publicly, and evidently not privately either considering the range of reports from within the PLP. Is he even aware, or is the bunker mentality so severe that he thinks every report of bad performance is just media bias?

e: How does this work! New to the thread... uh... 361, the area code for a region of Texas known as Corpus Christi - also the name of our own Ed Milliband's college at Oxford!

El Grillo fucked around with this message at 16:21 on Jul 29, 2016

# ¿ Jul 29, 2016 16:16

El Grillo: Jan 3, 2008; Fun Shoe

Crashbee posted:

Ah yes, the old 'something needs to be done, this is something' strategy that's always so successful.

What are you suggesting, that he just sits on his arse and sulks like he has been? Has that been effective so far?

WhiskeyWhiskers posted:

I don't see how you could think his stance on Trident is the wrong choice, it's just the unpopular one.

Maybe Corbyn should start banging on about Tough Choices�? Would that help his electability?

Yeah I'm not sure on Trident myself. I certainly prefer his principled position. Not sure how that helps in any way however? Unless you think the electorate can be swayed in the next few years by comrade Corbyn into believing they really don't need nukes after all.

No he shouldn't start banging on about Tough Choices, he should have spent the past 9 months setting out, again and again, the clear economic alternative Labour is offering, and the bunch of lies and bullshit the Tories have been spewing since 2008 (or since 1979, take your pick). Every interview, every PMQs, every public appearance. Meanwhile, compromise (you know, like a political leader) on the issues which really aren't important to the electorate, instead of making them a gigantic issue, and confront allegations of abuse and threats of deselection with practical action, not just words.
The Tories' economic fantasy land has literally been collapsing before our eyes over the past 9 months, and has no been binned altogether by the new PM. The leadership somehow barely managed to even begin to capitalise on this.

# ¿ Jul 29, 2016 16:29

El Grillo: Jan 3, 2008; Fun Shoe

baka kaba posted:

See the thing is though, it doesn't matter if it's only a minority stirring up trouble. Aside from the fact that the media has fixated on 'controversies' put out by the Tories, papers saying he didn't bow enough etc, it only takes one leak to set BAD CORBYN as the lead story on the evening news. And that can be timed to bury some other message that Labour are trying to put out. Any success can be turned into a failure by someone going 'look over there!' The problem is that the media is so open to these juicy stories, either because of a tabloid mentality or because Corbyn's enemies have connections, or because they just want to hurt Corbyn themselves. Having a media message is absolutely no guarantee you'll be granted the platform to put it out there

And this isn't me saying everyone's undermining Corbyn at every turn, or that he's not hurting himself by refusing to play the game - lots of journalists were expressing frustration that they weren't getting the access and the soundbites they expected. But if they were genuinely interested in reporting political news to inform people of what Labour are up to, they could easily do it. Instead the infighting and whispers and staged resignations get the airtime, because they're exciting.

The latter's a case in point - the exact plan for those resignations (one on the hour, every hour, in a media blitz after the EU ref) was reported two weeks earlier, so it was completely expected and blatantly staged. Every news report I saw treated it as some kind of shock unfolding drama, as MP after MP resigned in response to Benn being sacked, and none of them pointed out it was planned like this before that or the referendum happened. Which you'd think would be an interesting story in itself, instead they just went with the media narrative the PLP wanted. Weird huh?

Tesseraction posted:

Also remember that Angela Eagle had registered her campaign website days before her "shock" resignation.

Yeah I know, I really do agree. It is hosed. It may well be there is no way for him to change the narrative at all, or even if he'd done better from the beginning he'd still be in the same place - though I don't think that's the case as he could have done a better job at reaching out to the PLP (and especially at least his own loving shadow cabinet), and at marginalising the relatively small number of attackers by actually beating them down in the press with his enormous, uh, mandate (and credible counter-arguments to the poo poo they were spewing).
But like you say, you have to play the game and he hasn't been for a while now. And if you're not going to do what's required, then what on earth is the point of you? In JC's case, he genuinely seems to believe he can get around the press by posting on social media, and by going round the country to Labour/Momentum rallies, and talking to local radio.
None of that is going to make up for (a) the complete, continuous and undefended dismantling of him in the mainstream media (except for loving Diane Abbott occasionally being sent out to man the walls and accidentally setting fire to them) and (b) his inability in interviews to communicate a core message effectively and not come across as either a slightly affronted old dude, or an old dude who's not aware of the poo poo that's going on at all (this is even with friendly interviewers like Jones).

e: sorry for the double post. For the record (got to go work now) I voted for JC and have no regrets as it was the only option. But, like Jones, I had and have no illusions as to his capabilities as a leader, and hope for someone better to carry on the policies (the economic side of which most of the PLP seem now to be on board with - and how could they not be, given austerity has effectively been abandoned as a political platform, and the neoliberal policies of the past 40 years are being drawn as a direct cause of Brexit?)

# ¿ Jul 29, 2016 16:46

El Grillo: Jan 3, 2008; Fun Shoe

Verizian posted:

Someone posted a few pages back about Labour potentially losing their position as the official opposition. Losing short money might be bad but in a democratic system why the gently caress do we have an official opposition?

It's the most overt way I've seen Westminster say �gently caress you all it's a two party system. you can have plain salt or sugar, and if you try to sneak some spices into the recipe well you're just gonna get salt.�

I mean who would they replace Labour with? Would they split the short money between the Lib Dems and UKIP or what?

I don't know about the origin, but the official opposition is important in an elective dictatorship-style system like ours, where if a government wins a decent size majority they can effectively do what they want and there's nothing anyone can do to stop them. The shadow cabinet are supposed to spend a huge amount of time crawling over the policy proposals and bills coming from the government, and calling them out on problems they find. As far as I know that's pretty much what actually happens.

e: wiki actually says the name at least came into being prior to the two-party system, in the 19th century. First Shadow Cabinet was under Gaitskill from '51; it was established to help oppose the Churchill government's policies as per the above.

El Grillo fucked around with this message at 18:33 on Jul 29, 2016

# ¿ Jul 29, 2016 18:06

El Grillo: Jan 3, 2008; Fun Shoe

Spangly A posted:

Reforming the labour party is more important than letting owen smith lose a ge. If your alternative is win neoliberal its not worth listening to.

I'm not sure what you're on about here. For one thing, the majority of the party has now clearly woken up to the fact that we need a genuine program of investment, i.e. tax/borrow/spend, and to take some major services back into public ownership. If they haven't, then yeah they are just too dumb to exist and should go, but I don't think that's the case. Owen Smith has been saying very clearly that JC's greatest achievement has been to pull the party over to the left again & make us provide a clear alternative to the Tories.
I have no idea whether Smith would lose a GE or not, but we can say with as much certainty as it's possible to say, that JC will lose a GE. His polling is completely dire, especially personally vs. May.

Crashbee posted:

Yeah, I'm pretty sure there's a few things he could do other than going straight to resigning. For example, maybe he could be interviewed by a friendly journalist, Owen Jones perhaps, which could then be put up on Youtube.

How on earth does this help the problem we're discussing?? Jones himself in that interview talks about being a political journalist and most people not being interested in any of this political bullshit, and spends ages trying to get a sensible answer out of Jeremy regarding how he is going to re-engage with the mainstream media, because electoral victory is not possible solely through social and online media? He even literally talks about how his videos get all these views on Facebook but that's not useful at all to JC's cause, because he needs to reach out through the regular press, not just shout into the online echo chamber.

Cerebral Bore posted:

El Grillo posted:
he should have spent the past 9 months setting out, again and again, the clear economic alternative Labour is offering, and the bunch of lies and bullshit the Tories have been spewing since 2008 (or since 1979, take your pick). Every interview, every PMQs, every public appearance. Meanwhile, compromise (you know, like a political leader) on the issues which really aren't important to the electorate, instead of making them a gigantic issue, and confront allegations of abuse and threats of deselection with practical action, not just words.
He has literally been doing this, but the media doesn't report on it. There's an entire academic study on this poo poo out there, you might want to look it up before you keep retreading the same old poo poo argument for much longer.

Yes I am aware of the study, hence (in part) the discussion on the previous page.
If he really had done the kind of things I set out in your quote, I wouldn't have a problem. It would be the PLP who were entirely to blame, instead of only partially as it is now. Jeremy hasn't done any of those things though - he hasn't been hammering home a single, clear economic message at every opportunity (if he had, presumably McDonnell in his recent Oxford speech wouldn't have put so much emphasis on that needing to be done; someone posted about this above) and he hasn't been making the necessary compromises and active moves against abuse which would have been at least a practical effort to unite the PLP around him.

Tesseraction posted:

Probably, but I'm not sure what else he can really do except try to find ways of reaching people without using the channels beholden to the propaganda wing of the Tory party.

Can't say I think the BBC is beholden to the propaganda wing of the Tory party, though they've certainly been under the heal recently given the threats to the license fee etc. They tend to go in cycles of being bolder in their stance against the government and being more placid (someone was writing about this recently, can't remember who).
Even so, I think with an effective communications strategy you have at least a chance to use the media to get your message out. It just requires a single, strong and well-justified position, e.g. austerity was provably complete bullshit, has utterly failed and (extraordinarily) now been completely abandoned, we need investment and a real industrial strategy to revitalise the downtrodden areas which so heavily voted for Brexit due to decades of economic neglect.

El Grillo fucked around with this message at 18:52 on Jul 29, 2016

# ¿ Jul 29, 2016 18:49

El Grillo: Jan 3, 2008; Fun Shoe

OwlFancier posted:

If the best thing Owen Smith can offer is "Jeremy Corbyn's right" then why do we not vote for Jeremy?

If the overton shift is such a good thing then let's continue it, and let's furthermore continue to reform the party so that it can continue to reflect public opinion by handing power to the membership.

I see very little reason to trust a man who last year was advocating for the privatisation of the NHS, who is the eventual product of a deeply undemocratic coup by the political elite of the labour party, when he says "alright yeah this popular guy was right now hand things back over to us and we'll do all these policies he suggested."

We can consider handing power to someone else when we have the capacity to revoke it again. And that means mandatory selection of MPs every GE, making them subject to review by their CLPs, and a change in leadership candidacy to allow candidates other than the PLP favorites to get on the ballot.

The reason to not vote for Jeremy (though I'm far from convinced by Smith, for all the reasons people have been saying in this thread) is that he has shown himself to be an incompetent leader, see:

Cerebral Bore posted:

To the best of my knowledge, he has literally done both of these things. But even if we assume that he hasn't for the sake of argument it wouldn't matter to the traditional media if he did, which the LSE study amply shows.

So at this point you're basically asking for that very same vacuous and undefined "doing more" that the Labour right has been yelling about for the past nine months. If you want to be taken seriously you could try to first define exactly what you're asking for and then explain how Corbyn could have realistically reached these goals, because this handwavy poo poo is just going in circles.

I have literally defined exactly what I'm asking for. You have responded by saying 'he has literally done both of these things', but not shown me any way in which he has. For example, which PMQs did he spend taking Cameron to task for his failed economic policy? Not just mentioning it, or bringing up a question from the public vaguely about austerity, but hammering Cameron with the figures which show his government effectively drowned any hope of a proper recovery in an untried, unsupported economic experiment. Pursuing his non-answers and calling him out on them in a sustained attack. Etc.
Or the interview or a speech where he's really hammered that home in a well-constructed, compelling way.

You can't, because he hasn't. He has talked a lot about the effects of austerity and how bad that is. He has said little-to-nothing since being elected about what we would do as an alternative (Corbynomics disappeared like a fart in the wind; see Richard Murphy's criticism of the leadership). He has, in fact, said barely anything about solid policy proposals whatsoever, and he has been heavily criticised by former members of his shadow cabinet (some of whom are anti-trident, anti-austerity, lifelong socialists themselves) for failing in this way and pretty much every other (the NPF still hasn't met for over two years).
If you can show what 'the best of your knowledge' is based on, that would be great. I would genuinely be really happy to see any evidence that Jeremy has done any of the very necessary and very basic things I outlined above.

Regarde Aduck posted:

Everybody knows this. The disagreement is about how to interpret the public's love affair with the Tories. The Pissflapian view is to blame Corbyn 100%. In the minds of people like him it is Corbyn's fault the media don't like him and so it's his fault they continue to run propaganda against him. They also claim it is his fault the party turned against him because of "bad leadership". These people typically ignore the recursive loops occuring. Why is his leadership bad? Because he can't control his party. Why can't he control his party? Because his leadership bad. He's ineffective in PMQ because his own party leaks to the Tories. Why do they leak? Because he's ineffective in PMQ. It is seriously this loving stupid.

The real question is... do they especially hate Corbyn or is it anyone on the left? Because if it's anyone on the left they will simply do to them what they did to Corbyn only this time you won't have a nice old man who makes jam just deflecting it all. No you'll have Owen Smith crying in a corner desperately running ever further to the center and beyond to make the papers stop picking on him. And then we end up back where we started and everyone votes Tories anyway.

The elephant in the room is that maybe the British public are just horribly right wing and it might take decades for another shift. If this is the case then no amount of leadership change is going to help Labour. If the British public are soldier loving, patriotic god fearing folk then the party for them is the Conservatives. Wanting the Labour party to turn itself into some monster chimera of right and leftist policy to try and poach electorate leftovers is folly and short sighted. At least with Corbyn in charge the opposition will have a true leftist voice. Smith won't win the GE either, but neither will he effectively combat the Tories from his position as the opposition. He dares talk of Corbyn's lack of patriotism when he lacks any conviction at all.

Given that May stood up and basically proposed Peoples' QE in her speech outside no.10, I think we can probably say we've moved past the point where anything outside of the economic mainstream is going to be slandered by the press. Why? Because the economic mainstream is collapsing. There is talk about implementing negative interest rates. poo poo is going crazy, and people all over are starting to wake up to the fact that neoliberalism has really hosed large sectors of western populations including ours (see: Brexit).

I'd disagree the public has a love affair with the Tories. 23% of the electorate does not represent a love affair, and neither does 36.9% of voters. The Tories aren't some unstoppable electoral force. They're just (unfortunately) politically competent in a way we weren't in 2010, 2015 and are not currently. We don't have to turn ourselves into a monster chimera, though taking a stand on unilateral vs. multilateral disarmament of nukes probably isn't particularly productive in an electoral sense.
We just have to have clear, consistent and well-founded messaging to undermine the other sides' economic platform. We have been dreadfully lacking that since 2008.

Regarding Corbyn's leadership, well see above, but his PMQs performances weren't bad because there were leaks, they were bad because he is bad at PMQs. The joe public letter things got tired incredibly quickly and in any case was useless to start with because, after having gotten a response to the initial question, Jeremy just let Cameron's answers go and didn't pursue him in the slightest. It's not surprising, JC is not a natural leader although with him being a good debater I had hoped he'd be a little better than he has been.
I would never argue the media dislike him just because he's shown poor leadership, that would be ridiculous. They are biased. We know this. It has not helped that he has shown poor leadership and it especially hasn't helped that his messaging has been all over the place and generally rubbish. He needs to cut through the bias and the spin. If that is even possible, it is only possible with clear messaging and a policy platform.

# ¿ Jul 29, 2016 20:29

El Grillo: Jan 3, 2008; Fun Shoe

OwlFancier posted:

Do you know how PMQs works?

Please elaborate!

# ¿ Jul 29, 2016 20:55

El Grillo: Jan 3, 2008; Fun Shoe

thespaceinvader posted:

THe PM is not obliged to actually answer and nobody is allowed to call him on it.

The first part I suppose I'd gathered, the second part OK that's good to know, thanks. I've been trying to find a source, is that in general procedure for supplementary questions?
Anyhow, unless you're suggesting Jeremy has performed particularly well at PMQs then I'm not sure I see your point? He has been roundly criticised from early on for not following up properly, instead pivoting to other policy areas. I don't think it's a stretch to say that Milliband was better than Jeremy has been (and given Milliband's own deficiencies this isn't saying a whole lot)?

I wouldn't especially care as I don't think PMQs is the most important thing, except the bias of the media &/ failings of the media strategy mean they may have been his most prominent public appearances since election.

# ¿ Jul 29, 2016 21:10

El Grillo: Jan 3, 2008; Fun Shoe

Autonomous Monster posted:

Er, you know that speech was one in a series that's been running since January, right? I mean I'm not going to claim that the team are heavily disguised narrative-spinning wizards but they absolutely have been working at it.

Yeah I know. Why haven't they been actually doing it in media appearances? Crazy frustrating. Develop the message, stick to it. We've had 9 months of material on this being generated by the other side, too.

OwlFancier posted:

He has actually done several PMQs where the questions are all on a theme, and has used the "questions from members of the public" angle to quite nicely shut the tories up when they start braying in the backbenches.

Fair, I got a bit carried away there. He got a bit better near the end, there was one where he did just keep asking the same question over and over and it was reported comparatively well.
The 'shutting up the backbenches' hasn't really worked at all though, as far as I've gathered? If he'd specifically said at the start, does the prime minister agree that this behaviour from his and my backbenches is damaging to the image of parliament in the wider country, and they should all shut the gently caress up and let us do this thing? Perhaps Cameron wouldn't have agreed, I don't know. Instead he just talked vaguely about things being a bit more civilised, and it didn't last long (hence Cameron's 'What happened to the new PMQs?')

# ¿ Jul 29, 2016 21:19

El Grillo: Jan 3, 2008; Fun Shoe

Cerebral Bore posted:

As already mentioned, you don't get to do this at PMQs. The PM doesn't have to answer poo poo if they don't want to, and you know that if Corbyn kept spending all his questions on asking the same thing (which is basically the only way that you can hammer home something at PMQs) the usual suspects would be yelling about all those other bad things that the Tories are doing that Corbyn totally should have focused on instead.

Again, as mentioned, McDonnell has been doing an entire lecture series of economic policy. For some reason the media haven't been reporting very much on it.

You keep claiming that what you ask for are basic things, but as mentioned above, what you're actually asking for when you say stuff like "Corbyn should go on the attack in PMQs" is something that cannot be delivered upon due to the format of the debate. The same goes when you ask for talking about alternative policies, which clearly has happened, but you didn't know about it due to the media demonstrably distorting and ignoring Corbyn's work and policies. What you're doing here isn't asking for some trifling thing, under the current circumstances it's actually closer to asking for the impossible, which is why I asked you to actually explain how these goals that you've set would be achievable. So if you'd do that it's be really nice.

Re: PMQs, see my post a couple above yours (thread moving fast). He did focus and go more on the attack in one session, asking the same question over and over (on tax credits) and was actually better received for doing so, because it pointed out how evasive Cameron was.

McDonnell's lecture series probably hasn't been reported on a lot because... it's a lecture series on the economy? Not a policy speech, a clash at PMQs or an interview with a reporter? I'm sure r4 has done something on it at some point but this if this is their attempt to put a message out about their economic policy, it's not a particularly effective way to do so.
A more effective way would be what I outlined above, i.e. complete saturation of the message at every opportunity. Austerity has been the underpinning for every single Tory policy we oppose. Anytime anyone is asked about any Tory policy in an interview or wherever, you link it back to the farcical lack of economic basis for austerity, the failings of the entire program, etc. Every time. This is not that difficult to conceive of surely?
Unfortunately such a coordinated messaging campaign requires... coordination. And probably Jeremy doing more interviews. Yes, I know he always got/gets asked about internal party problems. Doesn't mean he can't do what the other side does and just pivot to Tory economic failings.

e: if I'm missing something obvious here I really do apologise, I am not trying to be obtuse. I'm genuinely trying to compare what the leadership has been doing with their media strategy, to what would seem to make sense to me as a media strategy. What seems to make sense to me as a media strategy is the strategy the Tories have been using since 2008, which has won them (just about) two general elections. That is complete focus on an economic message which underpins their opponents' credibility. Note that they did not try and use a travelling lecture series as the primary means of delivering this message. Instead they (like any functional party) had senior figures on the media, and linked basically everything that was put to them back to Labour's supposed failings on the economy.

e2: I do not know this Pissflaps people speak of but am hoping I'm not turning into him. After all I did support JC previously and at the mo genuinely don't know who the hell I'm supporting (so no-one right now I guess).

El Grillo fucked around with this message at 21:54 on Jul 29, 2016

# ¿ Jul 29, 2016 21:47

El Grillo: Jan 3, 2008; Fun Shoe

OwlFancier posted:

Corbyn's done that too, with his "failure" theme around the time of the budget.

Almost everything he releases has him blaming the tories for the state of the country and the things that people have to suffer.

He's definitely been blaming them in terms of pointing out the terrible effect of austerity, but I don't think he's been emphasising the economic side enough - i.e. doubling of debt, huge wage gap, failure of QE and the entire monetary side of things. It's good to be seen as caring about the people affected by austerity but the real meat of the issue is economic credibility, that should be the primary focus (not morally but in terms of political capital).
Yeah sometimes he's been more on message. Just think you've got to be consistent, and again his hiding away from the media recently is not a viable strategy.

# ¿ Jul 29, 2016 21:57

El Grillo: Jan 3, 2008; Fun Shoe

Cerebral Bore posted:

And since you say that you're aware of the LSE study you should know that Corbyn doing what you ask for is irrelevant since it won't get honestly reported on anyway. This means that a message saturation strategy is impossible to pull off since the press will probably twist Corbyn's message or make one up and assign it to him, ruining any attempt at hammering home a unified message. Since Jeremy Corbyn doesn't control the mass media with an iron hand, he realistically cannot do what you ask for under the current circumstances. This should be obvious to you since you've repeatedly said "Corbyn should do X" ITT only for someone to point out to you that he's actually already done that.

Again, you're saying "Corbyn should do X" while handwaving away the actual process by which he could accomplish that. I believe it's been made vary clear that these processes are much more complex and far harder to pull off than what you imagine it to be, which is why I'll once again ask you to explain how exactly your demands could be realistically accomplished. I'm not asking this poo poo just for the sake of it, it's actually pretty drat important.

Yeah, so for example above when he did actually give a strong performance at PMQs, he came off better in the media. Even on the flipping Telegraph website.
You've said people have repeatedly pointed out to me that JC has done the things I've suggested. But if you read the posts above, you'll see me arguing key points which haven't been refuted, such as him making far fewer/no appearances on mainstream news programs, thus depriving him of the opportunity of hammering on the economic message - and him not adequately articulating that message (i.e. prioritising the economic side, not the 'human impact of austerity' side) when he is. For example, see his latest interview of any kind, with Owen Jones. He puts out a narrative about improving peoples' lives and so on, but not a macroeconomic one. The economy is simply fundamental to any campaign for government, as we all know.
I've also admitted that maybe none of this would have worked/will work, maybe it is simply impossible for him to be portrayed well in the media no matter what he does, as the LSE study suggests (though I've argued that bad media presentation and strategy has contributed, and would also argue that examples such as the one above seem to suggest this too). At that point, what the hell is the point of him being leader? If we're saying that he cannot make it work with the media; somehow, he is far far worse than Milliband in that respect. If he's reelected an nothing changes, which by most peoples' logic in this thread, is exactly what will happen. Does he just carry on shouting into his social media bubble while the party splits/dissolves around him?
John McDonnell said a few days ago Jeremy would resign if he lost a general election. Every indicator we have shows he is on course not just to lose such a (possibly early) election, but to lose it catastrophically. Why on earth would we just carry on with him in charge, especially when the majority of the PLP seems to have finally come round to the fact that we do need to provide a real alternative to the Tories/pure neoliberalism? I get distrust of them, I get the fact that they've shown massive incompetence themselves recently, but do they really have a choice on economic policy but to stay Left, now that May is purporting to abandon austerity entirely and start what effectively amounts to Peoples' QE (not that I trust her to do so but that's the stall she set out)? Now that every indicator, including the most massive upheaval in our politics and our economic situation for decades (Brexit), is pointing to the dire need for an alternative economic strategy going forward?

Angepain posted:

don't worry this has been nowhere near the level of the arguments that involve pissflaps, for one thing it's not even been painful to read or anything

Thanks man I'm glad to hear that :3:

# ¿ Jul 29, 2016 22:21

El Grillo: Jan 3, 2008; Fun Shoe

baka kaba posted:

The trouble with this is that it's for show, and the people it's meant to enlighten won't see it, because the news tends to report PMQs as "here's one thing a person said, here's a thing the other person said", so you only see one question anyway. And that's why Cameron always had some Sick rear end Burn ready, so that the news would show that answer and make it look like the Opposition got immediately schooled and that was the end of it

PMQs always seems like it's the Prime Minister's to lose. Corbyn's approach seems to be about putting issues out there to be heard, instead of trying to win a slap fight. He might actually do better against May, depends on her style. Cameron's bullingdon loudmouth style suited the format

See above though about that '6 questions and no answers' one on tax credits - it did receive better coverage in the media (even on the Torygraph website). PMQs is definitely theatre, and the message of him doing well in it might not reach the voters it needs to (I genuinely don't no) but at least doing well and holding your own is going to contribute to a more positive media perception over time. The letters thing just turned into a farce; he'd get jeered, stop and look at them like a disgruntled old schoolteacher, then eventually carry on. This amused some on his side (like the whole 'side-eye' thing) but I think probably made him look risible to most non-Corbynista's.

LemonyTang posted:

https://www.facebook.com/everythingyork/photos/a.575157305887316.1073741828.575151002554613/1041706482565727/?type=3

Owns

Face-to-face. You can pummel an anti-austerity strategy at the media as much as you want and your words will still be twisted. That's not to say don't have a media strategy, just that, even if all Jeremy said was "An end to austerity" it would be twisted. If you believe in Corbyn's politics, even if not the man, you have a responsibility to advocate for it and support events that advocate it - as plenty of posters here do do.

Yeah this is cool as at least some people outside the bubble are going to have seen it, maybe stopped to listen. But I know York voted Remain and I assume it's a Labour stronghold(?) so again, need to find a way to reach out to the places we've lost to Con/UKIP/SNP.

One thing I've been thinking about for ages, and I know John Harris (of 'Anywhere but Westminster' fame, made that great speech at the Compass 'Progressive Alliance' event recently) is very keen on too, is the idea of doing US-style 'town hall' meetings. Get political leaders (Jeremy/John/shadow cabinet members) out to some of the economically disenfranchised places where Labour voters have been turned off, get them on a stage with a mic and just let them have a conversation with people. Not something heavily moderated like Question Time but a situation where people can really press for answers and politicians are really forced to listen to peoples' issues and complaints.
Possibly it'd be a complete shitshow though. And maybe it'd be hard to get audiences - but maybe not if you advertised well? Hell, maybe you could even get some local TV news coverage, and initially you might get national news coverage if the leader of a party went out to do this.

# ¿ Jul 29, 2016 22:38

El Grillo: Jan 3, 2008; Fun Shoe

thespaceinvader posted:

This is exactly what the McDonnell New Economics tour is, and it's working. The next one is in some tiny town in Dorset and they've packed out a 400 seat venue there and probably could have sold it twice.

There's a genuine popular movement building, but it's going on impossible to see in the MSM.

Liskeard. Should be interesting to see how that one goes. So far they have been mostly in Labour-type places I think? Or at least places where there's a strong-enough Labour/Momentum presence to pack out these places. South East Cornwall is a pretty safe Tory seat I think.
I guess one of the problems with this kind of thing is that you're bound to get the entire local party turning out, but will any of the people we need to persuade to vote for us come along to a Labour economics talk? Some, but I suspect not many. Making it broader, a more open format and focusing on letting people 'have their voice heard' might be a better solution for actual voter outreach.

El Grillo fucked around with this message at 22:58 on Jul 29, 2016

# ¿ Jul 29, 2016 22:55

El Grillo: Jan 3, 2008; Fun Shoe

thespaceinvader posted:

Again: they are doing that. They're doing a format of two experts give 20 minutes each of speech on a given economic theme, then open to the floor for questions. And as already noted, they certainly indicated yesterday that they'd filled all 400 seats in Liskeard and could have filled more.

It's almost like they know that they're doing and are good at it.

Seriously, McDonnell is a very canny guy, and I had a lot of respect for him even before seeing him in person.

On reflection I'd have far preferred to see him rather than Corbyn get the nomination last year, but it was not to be.

That's cool (and agree on McDonnell's capabilities, though I think he's probably too dour a character for a potential PM). My point (badly made above) is that I don't know if they're getting non-Labour members in, or perhaps more relevantly non-current-Labour-voters. Obviously there will be some but I'm guessing many of that 400 tomorrow in Dorset will be the local party members, general lefty types (who haven't joined), or solid Labour voters. Don't know if they're doing local advertising for these things; hopefully, and hopefully they're keeping track of who's attending so can tell whether they're genuinely reaching new people!
I still think (though would like to be proved wrong, if they come out with some data on who's been attending the economics roadshow events) that we need something that directly tries to reach out to people who aren't lefties or 'current' Labour voters, hence my point on doing something a bit more open in terms of topic, as opposed to just a series on the new economics.

El Grillo fucked around with this message at 23:58 on Jul 29, 2016

# ¿ Jul 29, 2016 23:45

El Grillo: Jan 3, 2008; Fun Shoe

OvineYeast posted:

I mean to be honest this sounds like the kind of thing that happens in every organisation I've ever been in.

Although actually, having re-read it, I'm not really entirely clear what the grievance is here. She'd been working on a policy about SEN and then John McDonnell independently announced an Autism Manifesto? Which need not be strictly concerned with SEN as such in any case.

Perhaps I'm missing something but I don't really see how that constitutes undermining. Lack of communication clearly an issue but it seems like she's blowing an incident out of proportion for political ends here.

She and her team had spent months preparing for the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities review. A large part of such a review would necessarily be dealing with strategies for working with kids who have autism. The no.2 in the party then announced his support on Twitter for the appointment of a Shadow Neurodiversity Minister and an autism manifesto. If they are saying they're going to adopt an autism manifesto and a new minister for this area, that is obviously going to have an impact on the work she has spent months doing (and had officially launched, three days prior). More pointedly, the fact that there was no consideration of her being contacted or of any discussion of this with her, shows a complete lack of awareness and coordination on the part of the leadership (which is also pointed to by every other account from within the shadow cabinet). Worse, she was simply unable to get a response out of him or the leadership, all the while the parties/organisations she'd been consulting with, and the media, are getting in touch to find out what's going on. She eventually gets a note telling her to expect an apology which never arrives.

It is not difficult to see how this is poo poo leadership and poo poo organisation.
Who would you talk to if you were considering adopting these new proposals? Probably the person who's been working on autism and education for the past 9 months. Except you wouldn't, if you'd either forgotten that they were, or had not spoken to them to find out how their work was progressing or what they were even doing.

It's like watching Chris Roberts trying to lead a political party.

# ¿ Jul 30, 2016 14:08

El Grillo: Jan 3, 2008; Fun Shoe

OwlFancier posted:

I said that if we grant it for the sake of argument then the complaint is still stupid.

If your response to working with someone who has, at worst, apparently forgotten something you were doing, is to quit your job and write to the papers about them, that says more about your inability to work as a team than theirs.

This is nonsensical. Just because you or other people work at jobs with lovely management (as I have in the past) doesn't mean that poo poo management of the official opposition is OK. This isn't a random office somewhere, this is supposed to be the next government.
This is the most basic stuff, working with the people you've delegated tasks to. Having some idea of what they're doing. JC can't do it. Why is this OK again?

OwlFancier posted:

If I can be expected, and in some cases manage, to work around managerial incompetence, I expect a cabinet minister to do the same.

Like the logical solution there is to go find Jeremy and badger him about it until he sorts it out. Not sit with your thumb up your arse writing letters about something that's obviously important and then writing to the bloody papers when you don't get an answer.

What? It's OK that there is such a lack of communication that the shadow cabinet has to go camp out in the leader's office to get even the most basic response to the most basic of queries? Some of them have literally had to do what you describe, they went and camped out in his office.
This is absurd, and it's absurd that people are making excuses for it because all the other MPs are all nasty and stuff and won't get in line with their leader who is somehow even more useless than the one they just had, who gave them their worst election defeat in loving ages.
This isn't just her, this is a bunch of others, it's Coleman, it's Murphy and on and on. People have been saying they are exceptionally useless at this stuff.
Not only that but on the accounts this is not seen as 'normal' managerial rubbishness witnessed in, for example, shadow cabinets of the past. This is exceptional levels of brain-dead.

# ¿ Jul 30, 2016 15:06

El Grillo: Jan 3, 2008; Fun Shoe

nothing to seehere posted:

Oh on the ban on CLP meeting stuff: It even bans the executive council for that CLP from meeting. So, our local labour party has just managed to swing a deep discount of renting some office space in a new UNITE building, which would be a huge upgrade over the dinky hole which is the current labour party office. But the EC need to pass one more motion to go ahead, and now they can't. So UNITE have to find a new tenant. Great move by the NEC!

Thought they could request meetings to vote on specific things, if it's exceptional circumstances? Maybe this doesn't count though.

# ¿ Jul 30, 2016 18:02

El Grillo: Jan 3, 2008; Fun Shoe

Anyone know what's actually going on with this? TV hustings on Monday night cancelled. Kind of annoying http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/30/corbyn-accused-of-bottling-hustings-with-smith-after-rejecting-debate?CMP=twt_gu

# ¿ Jul 31, 2016 15:09

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 17, 2024 22:36

El Grillo: Jan 3, 2008; Fun Shoe

Hoops posted:

If anyone skimmed past this post, I urge you to go back and read every word. Owen Jones is honestly the biggest left-wing political talent in Britain.

Yep. Pitty about him feeling he has to cover his own arse but like he says, he spends too much time on social media. He's bang-on with all of this. And unfortunately there are no answers forthcoming from the Corbyn camp - in fact I half suspect he decided not to pitch up to the first leadership debate because he hasn't yet got a coherent set of policies. He certainly doesn't seem keen on reheating the stuff he put out during the first leadership race.

# ¿ Jul 31, 2016 21:00

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > UKMT July 2016 - Thank you very much. Do doooooo do do. Right.