ot jeremy corbyn

[rolymiller]

Your a feisty foe Mr Kerr but you make some reasonable points there to make me think you are not all bad. I don't think you are a Nazi by the way nor a racist but it rankles when you defend those who seem to be like that. I Dont Expect you To Know the answers To solve world Poverty I Certainly Dont But You Would Come Across a lot better To All the Leftys On here If you Showed a little More compassion to the Poor Eh?

[rolymiller]

By the way i appreciate your attempts to answer my questions and if it's any comfort to you i know quite a few Tories as pals and family members and generally don't attempt to eat em for breakfast.

[rolymiller]

Oh one last thing before beddy byes you are obviously an educated chap my advice To You Is To put away your adam Smith books and instead read some books on sociology and you might be a bit more aware of where us leftys are coming from. Nighty Night.

[KerrAvon]

Erm, they have been elected, the last 2 times.

I think he meant that 'New Labour' were rendered unelectable. That's not really the case. In 2010 they had a manager rather than a leader in the form of Gordon Brown and the country was in a recession for which they would inevitably take some of the blame. Despite that the Tories needed to form a coalition government.

The more interesting issue is why Labour didn't win in 2015 and 2017, after years of austerity and lack lustre economic performance and with the Tories seemingly choosing not to contest the 2017 competition.. I'd argue that they didn't have leaders who inspire enough people in the country, just as in 2010.

[ragingpup]

Assuming that anyone other than us is still actually reading this thread, they will be able to see what you wrote about Mail readers and will be able to draw their own conclusions about what you were saying, just as Shark27 and I have. How is a post that begins You think the Mail is only targeting immigration to sell papers to the bigots? not accusing Mail readers of being bigots?

As I mentioned earlier, your Rees-Mogg conspiracy theory smacks of desperation. Do you have any evidence to support it or is it just something you have made up to explain the apparent contradiction between the Mail’s clear anti-immigration stance and the repeated assertion from the Left that the Tories and big business like mass immigration?

Okm then, help me out - what exactly did you mean when you wrote that the Mail is "simply pandering to the tastes of a particular mind set"? What exactly is that mind set with which you are tarnishing the names of our good Mail reading friends? Be specific and cc Shark27 into the reply. Thanks.

[ragingpup]

As I said, IBS is the expert on Chomsky. As far as I’m concerned, the notion of an anarcho-syndicalist supporting any politician over another is like the chair of a Vegan Society saying they prefer Burger King to McDonalds.

Kerr - Did Chomsky say that "If I were British I would vote for Corbyn"? Yes or no?

There are videos of the interview online if you don't believe the report I linked to. You could even ask IBS if you like if you need help...

[ragingpup]

I think the Guardian to the Mail covers a spectrum of views. There is also the internet so that people can plug themselves directly into Labour propaganda if they wish. They can also go out and buy a copy of The Socialist Worker if they want to.

I’d remind you that the best you can do is to propose an element of state (for which read political) control of the media, apparently to rid ourselves of the scourge of the Mail capitalising words in the headlines of factual articles about Labour policy announcements.

I know which I prefer, a media that offers a range of views or one that reports what politicians will allow it to.

Are you sure that you aren’t just sore that people prefer The Sun to The Mirror?

As I said, IBS is the expert on Chomsky. As far as I’m concerned, the notion of an anarcho-syndicalist supporting any politician over another is like the chair of a Vegan Society saying they prefer Burger King to McDonalds.

I think I can see your problem. You simply can't imagine any other alternative to the here and now can you? It's either free market neo liberalism or state controlled hell! In this you are frighteningly similar to Great Fire.

Who said anything about politicians controlling the press? They are the last people that should be involved, for the reasons that you have stated. But that doesn't mean that there aren't other socially driven cross cultural, cross society discussed and agreed alternatives.

I can see that you are happy with the status quo of a handful of individuals effectively being able to reach and influence the views and votes of over 10 million people, and the illusion of 'democracy' that this represents. Well done, you must be very happy. But I think I'll keep pushing for long term alternatives for a mass press that fairly represents it's society.

[ragingpup]

I think that is a sound move, Frog. I get irritated by these threads so I can understand how non-participants must feel.

It's not the threads that irritate you Kerr. It's just the posters that point out the huge flaws in your world-view! x

[great_fire]

I think he meant that 'New Labour' were rendered unelectable. That's not really the case. In 2010 they had a manager rather than a leader in the form of Gordon Brown and the country was in a recession for which they would inevitably take some of the blame. Despite that the Tories needed to form a coalition government.

The more interesting issue is why Labour didn't win in 2015 and 2017, after years of austerity and lack lustre economic performance and with the Tories seemingly choosing not to contest the 2017 competition.. I'd argue that they didn't have leaders who inspire enough people in the country, just as in 2010.

None of them are inspiring that's true.

Mogg would be much more so but the press will go after him for his religious views particularly on abortion, which they wouldn't do if he was any other religion, abortion is forbidden in many religions including the establishment's favourite one, Islam.

[ragingpup]

None of them are inspiring that's true.

Mogg would be much more so but the press will go after him for his religious views particularly on abortion, which they wouldn't do if he was any other religion, abortion is forbidden in many religions including the establishment's favourite one, Islam.

Which press are out to get Mogg? Where are these public atacks coming from?

Taking a scan through the newspapers, the Mail, Express and Sun are all reporting stories from him favorably (as they are backing his stance on Brexit) and all except the Guardian and the Mirror in the mass media are pretty supportive of him as far as I can see. Even the Sun, Mail and Express supporting him means that the vast majority of newspaper readers in the UK (by way of the number of sales of these 3 papers outselling the others) will be receiving news opinion supporting him.

So where is this press of which you speak that will be going after him? The Mirro and the Guardian (especially the Guardian) have tiny readerships by comparison...