ot jeremy corbyn

[millmoormagic]

If it helps, Slimchance, I got it.

Lovely, did you get that proof of the link between Corbyn and the pira by any chance, must be the 4th time of asking this.....

[KerrAvon]

You'll not strawman me sweetie. xx

Where is the strawman, darling?

I made a comment about The Great Leader meeting with Hamas and Hezbollah, but not with Israeli representatives and you responded by saying that you [/I] wouldn't want anything to do with Israeli Government either.[/I]. It seems only reasonable that you should address the other half of my point concerning the people from Hamas and Hezbollah that he referred to as friends.

I can understand why you don’t want to answer my question, because to do so would say something about your or The Great Leader’s hypocrisy on the point, but that is not an excuse for not answering.

[KerrAvon]

My final thoughts on the smear campaign conducted by Fleet Street's finest and endorsed by Mr Baker is this .

If you have to sell your product using the words commie , marxist , spy , 1970's , Venezuela , strikes and so forth then maybe your product ain't very good .

Worrying about the opposition would be pretty weird if you were the Barca of politics .

Do try not to be so scared of the opposition and play your own game dear tories .

You do have a game ........ dont you ???

I agree that Commie and Marxist don’t help as I’ve never been a fan of labelling people (hence my frustration with those on the Left who continually use the fascist or Nazi tags, or, indeed, liken people to Himmler). I don’t understand your issue with comments about Venezuela or the 70s, though.

The Great Leader has made repeated comments about his admiration for the Socialist utopia that has been created in Venezuela. He brought that country into the equation, surely you can’t complain that he is now asked about it. The Independent has been quoted by you with approval, so I’m sure you won’t mind me linking to this piece: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...-a7875451.html

As for the 70s, again, he wants to reintroduce the policies that made this country such a raging success in the decade – it’s his preferred route. Surely you can’t expect that won’t be pointed out?

[Amanda_Hugg_n_Kiss]

It being an argument I was never having would be the excuse my love.

[animallittle3]

@ 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 .

[Amanda_Hugg_n_Kiss]

My argument again was the hypocrisy in the terrorist sympathiser slur because it's funny how a lot of the folk who use this are sympathisers with by far worse terrorists.

[millmoormagic]

Kerr, Corbyn and the Pira.....

[ragingpup]

@ ragingpup

I'm not sure that I can ever forgive you for getting me to look at the Daily Mail website and to put money in their pocket by doing so, but you left me curious. Can you assist me with your knowledge of media studies and comment upon the capitalisation of the words RISES and DOUBLE in this article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-000-year.html

And with the capitalisation of the word WHEN in the headline of this article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...arget-hit.html

And finally with the capitalisation of the word AGAIN in this article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...e-achieve.html

Applying your logic, these articles must represent 'sickening spin' against the Tories, particularly the middle one, which ran during the 2017 election campaign.

N.B. The article in the final link does go on to slag off The Great Leader, but only at the end of the article, which your knowledge of media studies reveals won't have been read.

Dearest Kerr,

Sorry for delayed responses to this and others. Snowed under at work. Limited time for what I fear will be a long post trying to deal with 2 or 3 thread issues, so anyone else, please avoid if easily bored! Impossible to deal with this in short burst, and even this will be a mere skim, but here goes...

Sorry for the sickly feeling I imposed on you with the Mail link. But you sent me THREE! Dirty trick! I've visited them and lost all sense of humanity!

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.

One thing we will never agree on is the influence of editorials on pubic consciousness and/or the debate on to what extent the public buys a newspaper because of its political leaning, whether the newspaper controls the political 'minds' of their readers etc. I hear your opinion on this, but quite simply disagree with you. I think that people choose a newspaper for a whole host of reasons, sports, columnists, readability, accessibility etc but it isn't necessarily due to the political leanings of it's owner. A huge factor here too is that the huge wealth of an owner can be a factor in how a newspaper can attract large numbers of readerships in being able to fund better market research, higher quality product, advertising, outlet sources, all of which help attract their readers over other newspapers. However, bottom line is that I believe that the political arguments that the owners make via their editors is a hugely powerful shaper of the way their readers vote, and is of course the result of years of manipulation and shaping of their news stories in the political context.

On a broad scale, any good dictator, anywhere in the world, left or right wing, will tell you that if you are to take and maintain your political control over a country, then the first thing you do is take control of the newspapers. From here you can effectively shape public opinion in any way you like, as we can see from the great dictators who have done this to horrific effect.

My argument would be, which I know you will not accept, is that exactly the same thing happens here, only the context is very different. Here the aim is to maintain a (increasingly neo liberal) free market capitalist structure where the power and wealth is owned by very few and it comes at the expense of the majority of people. I accept this is a crude simplification but I am limited by both time (and a limited ability to express complex matters - Chomsky obviously is much better at getting to the root of how it works, although as I've said before, Owen Jones summarises well in 'The Establishment and How they Get Away With It').

The effect of this, crudely put, is that when any political figure aims to challenge this political structure, then the newspaper owners, whom I have shown hugely outnumber the opposition in their readership numbers, combine to oppose this politician and use whatever means necessary to discredit, falsify and ultimately convince their reading public that they and their ideas are unworthy of consideration.

This is not to say that I am offended that any publication should oppose/challenge anyone wishing to go for public office. that would be absurd. But what I object to is the use of mass media, owned by very few people with connections both to the political leaders, who give funds to the political leaders (I would object to the Unions funding labour if this gave Labour an unfair advantage in swaying public opinion), and are in turn funded by the large corporations. For me it is a huge, self-serving machine that, whilst systematically, theoretically, as capitalism, should provide an economic incentive for all people in society, in actuality doesn't.

In short, no real challenge to the system has been allowed, at least until very recently when interestingly we have seen social media at least going some way to spreading opposition to mainstream thought. It most likely will be no where near enough, as even social media will I think become more controlled (if it proves a threat to the establishment).

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.

How to address this? Well, of course there are no easy, simple solutions and of course any attempt to offer a refinement to a free market based mass media/political voice system will always be open to immediate accusations of restraint of free speech. But my opinion is (which again I know you will disagree with and why, but I still hold my opinion I'm afraid!) that the so called 'democratic' model of 'free press' simply is an illusion - it is not a free press, it is owned by less than 10 people, and is hugely slanted to the right wing free market neo liberal capitalists who fund them (who as we can see are pushing for a Brexit which I think is in their own interests as well as the more (generally) bigoted interests of their readers)

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.

You can find immediately lots of problems with this (I could and I am proposing it!) but I am not proposing a complete solution, just a direction of travel. As it is, in reality, we are MILES away as a society from even contemplating a change in the way our mass media are engaged with our political organisations. If you want to know more, and expressed better, read Chomsky:

"Control of thought is more important for governments that are free and popular than for despotic and military states. The logic is straightforward: a despotic state can control its domestic enemies by force, but as the state loses this weapon, other devices are required to prevent the ignorant masses from interfering with public affairs, which are none of their business…the public are to be observers, not participants, consumers of ideology as well as products."

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.

Lunch break over and out…

[great_fire]

You think we are sinister fire , you should check out Mogg's little £2k membership group , they'd terrify the Gestapo .

Last bloke who resembled Mogg was Heinrich Himmler both in looks and ideology .

It never ends well for the far right mate when the left-wing tanks roll into town , we might lose our wall when it goes tyts up but you lot , oh dear me , I can see Mussolini now strung up on that market stall , not pleasant .

Only kiddin fire only kiddin !!

Mussolini started off a Communist like your hero Corbyn.

[great_fire]

@ 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 .

Perhaps you could tell Len McCluskey that?