ot jeremy corbyn

[animallittle3]

Perhaps you could tell Len McCluskey that?

Back in the day every workplace had a McCluskey fire .

[great_fire]

If only there was some sort of clue that Corbyn is a Communist:

[millmoormagic]

Haha, you really do need professional help fella.

[animallittle3]

If only there was some sort of clue that Corbyn is a Communist:

Michael's an interesting character fire , he's got his views which he is fully entitled to of course .

His Red Pepper publication started 20 years ago and it's fair to say he's fairly consistent with how he sees the world , some of it chimes some of it doesn't .

I can only comment on my own group who are perfectly decent people seeking something better .

People to the left of Scargill will be attracted and I wouldn't deny that , how much influence they have is pretty minimal from what I've personally witnessed .

Could be worse fire , we could have people such as Mogg who are extremely right wing calling the shots within this backbench government and it's deputy PM from Belfast .

One poster doesn't define the party fire but hey ho go for it mate .

The canning of Corbyn tends to be about the right not able to provide solutions or policies to tackle the problems we are facing today .

It's high time you guys parked Corbyn and showed us what you have to make all our lives better and more prosperous .

Obviously I'll not be holding my breath .

[KerrAvon]

@ Kerr

You fail to acknowledge consistently that the UK today both culturally and the workplace are vastly different to the 1970's .

If you actually think there are thousands upon thousands of workers just chomping at the bit ready for the signal to bring the country to it's kness then you are deluded .

People just want to go to work , pay their bills , find decent housing , actually get a doctors appointment this week instead of next month , feel safe and see a police presence and not see their wages consistently falling .

Not the 70's something that's actually a dam sight more fairer than they are receiving today .

Your lot have their fingers in their ears , your mob created Corbyn and your policies have placed him right where he is today .

Instead of smearing him why don't they try playing the game on the pitch ? .

The truth is they can't , neither the talent or the will to address any of the issues I've mentioned .

Your voters and membership are old or extremely wealthy , your doomed if you don't start changing your ways .

With all due respect, I have always been clear that the country has changed since the 70s - that's exactly why I will not vote for a Labour Party that seeks to return us to those days.

The Thatcher government ended the closed shop protection racket, imposed democracy on the unions and curbed the intimidation of working people by mass and secondary picketing. Just as importantly, she had the will to face the unions down as you will recall from 1984/5. To be fair to Labour, their 2017 manifesto only promised to repeal the Trade Union Act 2016, but would it stop there? Why should anyone believe that to be so given The Great Leader’s politics, the source of his funding and that he and Len McCluskey appear to be joined at the hip?

If your argument is that people’s attitudes have changed. Take a look at this post of yours from 14 months ago: http://boards.footymad.net/showthread.php?t=38178604

So there you are, a member of the Labour Party and of what you imply is a ‘moderate’ Momentum unit, endorsing an article from The Guardian that calls for increased militancy and relishes industrial action.

The enemy within hasn’t disappeared, it’s just waiting for a government that is willing to slip the leash on it.

You mention a number of things that you think people want. You’re probably right, but are they willing to pay for it? The Lib Dems stood on a 1% increase in income tax to increase funding for the NHS and got nowhere in 2017. And when the Bedfordshire Police and Crime Commissioner secured a referendum for an increase in council tax funding for the police, this is what happened:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32694166.

At the time of that referendum, I saw a number of ‘vox pop’ interviews with members of the Bedfordshire public, who pretty much universally said ‘No – we pay enough already’. I suppose that’s why Labour did better than expected in 2017 with their ‘you can have all that you want and more and someone else will pay’ message. The sad thing is that in most other areas of their life, they would recognise that to be a ‘too good to be true’ proposition

People might not want the 70s, but that’s what they risk getting if they return The Great Leader to power. The Great Leader wants to be PM. Whilst it may be inconvenient for him to have some his past words reported, it’s unrealistic of you to expect it not to happen.

[KerrAvon]

P.s. The next time you are chasing gf around the board, remember this thread:

http://boards.footymad.net/showthread.php?t=37815245

Ordinarily that sort of thing you would have Gisjbert and Mikey calling you a fascist, but I expect they will find a reason not to.

[KerrAvon]

@ragingpup

Blimey, you have too much time on your hands.

I’m not reproducing your post in full as it would probably only leave a handful of characters left for me to respond with, but will pick out some bits to respond to. No doubt this will have some of your more rabid comrades up in arms, but I’ll live with it.

In summary, yes these are all slanted twists on news stories with emphasises you've mentioned putting pressure on the PM to move in the direction that the owner wants over Brexit. I haven't had chance to read the full articles and don't know the context of the articles that they were commenting on, but the slant of the stories are obvious. I never said that they only target Corbyn or Labour leaders. In my opinion, the newspaper owners will of course stop at nothing to use their newspaper as a vehicle to affect public opinion to achieve whatever ends they want to achieve. And in these articles, they are doing so again, but with a different issue.

The links that I put up are not focused on Brexit. They represent the anti-immigration editorial stance of the Daily Mail, with both Labour and the Tories coming in for fire.

The anti-immigration position of the Mail is interesting in that it flies in the face of one of the main arguments advanced on this board by those of a Left leaning political persuasion, which is that mass immigration is some sort of conspiracy between business and the Tories to provide a cheap supply of Labour (animal recently drew a parallel between immigration from Eastern Europe and people trafficking, which shows a shocking lack of understanding of that crime). So how does that work? The Mail is some sort of creature of big business, but is vehemently anti-immigration... It doesn’t take a media studies A-level to see the contradiction there.

The fact is that the Mail ploughs its own furrow and will use 'sickening spin' (i.e. the capitalisation of words in headlines) against anyone who gets in front of the tractor. And what is the end it wants to achieve? Assuming that the paper is being run to make money for its owner, then they do it because they are seeking to appeal to people with a particular mind-set – people who share its particular flavour of political basis – in order to sell copy.

To repeat the questions that Gisjbert swerved and which you too have ignored: ‘how often do you read the Daily Mail and would it turn you into a right winger if you did? To help you, the answer is: ‘I don’t and no, it wouldn’t’. That’s because people buy their papers to suit their own political view point. And even if you did decide to go mad and started to buy the Mail, because you liked the football reporting, would that make you froth at the mouth every time you heard the word immigrant and some headlines had capitalised words? No, it wouldn’t.

Interestingly (for me anyway) that the only time Labour had a look in in the last 50 years is when Tony Blair convinced Murdoch and the newspaper owners that Labour were not a threat and that any social reforms that he made would take place without any imposition on wealth taxes. Very telling in my opinion that as soon as Murdoch received this assurance from Blair, Murdoch's paper recommended Blair to the public in two elections and lo! the very public that you argue choose the newspaper because of their political leanings, go out and vote in Labour! Of course there were other factors, Blair's smiley appeal on TV etc, but for me this shows the link between editorial/owner voice in the mass media and the voting patterns of the public. .

In addition to the Blair/Brown years. Labour was also in power from 1974 to 1979 within the last 50 years. What’s your explanation for that? Were the press barons asleep in 1974 (twice). And what about 1945, 1950, 1964 and 1966, when Labour were running on ‘old Labour’ policies?

You seem to think that Blair was successful because of the support from Murdoch. On the other hand, perhaps your argument is a non sequitur and he was successful because he was running on policies that the public found palatable in the same way that Murdoch apparently did.

So if you start with the premise (which I do and you don't, up yours I say! :-)) that our current model is not fit for purpose of serving the interests of the majority of people in the country, I think we would need to be moving in the direction much further than the Leverson enquiry, more into controlling the ownership and balance of the mass market communication. I'd be all for a cross party joint venture and organisation that reflected the interests of all political parties evenly and completely restructure the way that mass media (with readerships of over x amount) can engage with expressing their own political opinions, on behalf of their owners) to the readers. This can be done in many ways, on many levels, is hugely fraught with difficulty and complex issues but is ultimately achievable in a way that achieves an ultimate cross party balance. We can’t say that this is unachievable, as we see with the BBC that they are closely monitored to achieve a politically even stance in their reporting. I am not bright enough, nor do I have time enough to think through and express detailed solutions but I would suggest that the ‘solution’ be a collusion of cross party, cross cultural discussion with the ultimate aim of balancing single interest ownership of mass news outlets expressing their political interests, or even enforcing balance in political reporting in the way that the BBC is subjected to.

So, in essence, you are arguing for a degree of state (for which read political) control of the media? Please tell me that you aren’t serious. For the record, I fundamentally and vehemently disagree with you. We are lucky enough to live enjoy living in a free and democratic country with a free press. That is not something to lightly give up, simply because some politicians don’t like what is printed. You are yet to give any examples of The Great Leader being caricatured as a devil hand in hand with terrorists. Are you really contemplating giving up a free press because some papers capitalise words in the headline of articles about Labour policy announcements?

You can say all that you want about me coming over all Orwellian and attempting to ‘mind control’ the public, but the whole point of this reasoning is that we are predominantly mind controlled already. That’s the bottom line.

If you are mind controlled, perhaps you should watch less of the social media stuff pumped out by Labour. It is nonsense to suggest that we are mind controlled when people have a range of media sources of all political leanings to choose from.

[ragingpup]

@ragingpup

So, in essence, you are arguing for a degree of state (for which read political) control of the media? Please tell me that you aren’t serious. For the record, I fundamentally and vehemently disagree with you. We are lucky enough to live enjoy living in a free and democratic country with a free press. That is not something to lightly give up, simply because some politicians don’t like what is printed. You are yet to give any examples of The Great Leader being caricatured as a devil hand in hand with terrorists. Are you really contemplating giving up a free press because some papers capitalise words in the headline of articles about Labour policy announcements?

If you are mind controlled, perhaps you should watch less of the social media stuff pumped out by Labour. It is nonsense to suggest that we are mind controlled when people have a range of media sources of all political leanings to choose from.

In haste. You're right, I don't have enough time for this! Interesting though.

The whole point of what I was arguing is that, as the Chomsky quote was dealing with, we are NOT "living in a free and democratic country with a free press" - that, in my opinion, is an illusion. The 'democracy' in our country is limited by the less than dozen mass media owners and their links with major corporation owners. They effectively limit the scope of argument that is able to be accessed to the masses of people. You are free to continue believing that it is a free democracy and a free press but I completely disagree, simple as that. And therefore I propose that we should move in the direction of rethinking that system, simply because the press is not free.

That might be fraught with difficulty, and I'm well aware that you might say that I only want a media that agrees with me. But that's not true, I just think that there should be a greater balance of political perspectives and arguments reaching the mass media market and that in 200-300 years time, our future inheritors (planet permitting!) will look back on this age and see it as very primitive in it's thinking regarding political/economic structures. Unlike you, I do not think that the current 'free market' neo liberal democracy is the best way of organising society and that it's straining at the seams. A reasoned, intelligent challenge that looks at trying to make a fairer society to the one that you support I think is a healthy thing. I welcome it.

[rolymiller]

You don' t do yourself a very good job of selling yourself to represent workers in dispute with management on here Mr Kerr kempo because you obviously are not interested in workers rights one bit. So I have to conclude all you miller's madders if you are in dispute with management use someone else who might defend you who actually cares. Makes me wonder who you do defend unless you are just motivated by money rather than what you believe in. Hmm? A man of no substance. Pathetic. Sad.

[rolymiller]

By the way greed is killing this planet but you obviously don't care just blame it on the weak and poor eh? Never do you address poverty except to glibly say the wealth will trickle down well there is no evidence to say it does and you know it never will. Stick to your selfish ways it suits you but it makes you a very poor specimen of a human being.