This is an interesting read. The role of social media in Corbyn being so popular. Equally relevant to the rise of Trump in America (@Adebesi). Online communities that create an atmosphere of distrust of all mainstream, moderate media and where half-truths and conspiracy theories get accepted as gospel in an echo chamber that demonises anyone with opposing views. Hence we're seeing the electorate polarising to extremes. Worrying stuff.
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
Corbyn isnt an extreme for crying out loud. Its a poor article but i imagine the journalist just got told to write about social media and he's done his job.
For a start 'likes' dont indicate any kind of active involvement so the premise set up at the start of that article on the volumes is worthless.
Id be quite sure that most Corbyn supporters largely get there news from the Guardian and Independent. The fact the guardian opposes Corbyn hasnt put them off because they tend to be engaged. This echo chamber is just a catch ohrase that sounds good.
I disagree with a lot of that. Corbyn is extreme. Relatively. Hence he's alienating the more centrist elements of the labour party.
The echo chamber stuff is more than just a trendy catchphrase. I think it reflects a really fundamental change in the way the electorate engage with politics. Something we've never seen before. With unknown and potentially profound consequences. Which the mainstream political parties are only just starting to get their head around.
Might start a thread about it...
'The rise of populism'
I thought this was an interesting take on it, relating to British democracy anyway.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/25/jeremy-corbyn-populist-democracy-mps
The Corbynistas I know think the media is out to get them (!) and read The Canary as their principal source of news. Well, you know, along with The Guardian, so they can tut about how bloody wrong the Red Tories are about everything.
I have a number of problems with that article.
Firstly it's a really shit version of Katharine Viner's much more detailed and nuanced piece.
But a quick takedown:
I think what the internet has enabled is for people with less mainstream views to more easily find other people who share those views. But the idea that the 'MSM' doesn't have a similar bubbling effect is ridiculous. No one buys both The Guardian and The Sun.
What even is her point here; the 'MSM' was overwhelmingly in favour of Brexit. I guess that they are both anti-elitist? As if all anti-elitism is of equal value? And anyway, the 'MSM' clearly has engaged in agenda against Corbyn. It's not surprising his supporters look to other sources than The Times, The Telegraph, The Mail, The Express, The Sun, Sky & the BBC. I mean which one of those does anyone want to argue has given Corbyn and Corbynism fair coverage? fecking comparing the Canary with the SunThe Sun which stirs up racial hatred by publishing lies. The Sun which… I started to list hateful stories published by the Sun and then decided it wasn't worth the time or the effort. The Sun is a stain on British culture. The Canary is not.
Also many Labour MPs did abstain on the welfare cuts. That isn't to justify the hatred that is directed at 'Blairites'. But again, it's in no way equivalent to some nut job conspiracy theory that the Eagle attack was a false flag incident.
Ah yes, if only the public listened to the 'MSM' with their factual pro-expert reporting we wouldn't get stupid electoral decisions like Brexit. Oh wait…
Last edited:
That's another interesting read. I'm definitely starting a thread!
The echo chamber thing is something Ive been actively thinking about a lot recently, trying to diversify my news sources. It hasnt always worked though. For a week or two I tried following this absolute turd, Paul Joseph Watson, to get a view from "the other side" but I had to delete him as I found him abhorrent. Lately Ive decided that this place is a good tonic for that as you do get varying opinions on here, even if there is a liberal bias. But a lot of people I know who use Twitter more than I do block anyone who says anything even remotely confrontational, even if they dont seem to me to be particularly aggressive or argumentative, just disagreeing. I think Twitter is being forced that way by the amount of trolling that goes on, apparently Corbyn or Momentum or whoever have advised "block, dont bicker" which I guess means less trolling problems but magnifies the echo chamber problem.
Paul Joseph Watson is in the same vein as Alex Jones, he even works for his channel. He might be less shouty and more articulate than Jones but he is still too far into paranoia driven conspiracies.
fecking twitter, man. If it's not helping the extreme right and left convince themselves that anyone who dares to hold differing opinions is "The Enemy", it's helping jihadists radicalise vulnerable and disenfranchised young men. With truly awful results.
Extreme is an incredibly useless term. It's entirely dependent on what is considered the mainstream view. E.g. 50 years ago advocating for LGBT rights was extreme. We should be more interested in what is right.
It also allows an equivalence to be drawn between incredibly dangerous extreme politicians like Trump and Farage, and people like Corbyn and Sanders, who, though you may disagree with them, aren't fecking fascists.
Finally it assumes that our current system of governance isn't extreme in its own way. We are currently rapidly killing the planet. Almost all of the benefits from the last 40 years of growth have gone to the richest. These are extreme choices. But more importantly wrong choices.
Mao wasnt a fascist... and infact our shadow chancellor quoted him in his budget response... does not mean that he wasn't extreme or dangerous
I don't disagree there's been a lot of wong/bad choices made by humanity in the post-war era. What I'm less convinced about is this idea that either of the political extremes have a monopoly on the solution, or would necessarily have the world in a better place than it is right now had they been in power much earlier. Taking a pop at the status quo is a piece of piss. Coming up with a concrete strategy that will guarantee better outcomes is the kind of detail that Corbyn and his ilk are a lot less strong on.
Owen Smith key points from his speech this morning
- Scrap Zero Hours contract
- Bulid 300,000 new homes
- Replace the DWP
- Restore 50% tax rate and introduce Wealth Tax
- Reintroduce Wage Councils
Yes, it is an interesting read. Do you think she was aware of the recent LSE report mentioned here: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...resentation-we-cant-ignore-bias-a7144381.html ? If she wasn't she should be. If she was, she's an attack-bitch.
This is always the fairest criticism of the left. At the same time it is the failings of the current system that are causing the very symptoms we are talking about. Lack of economic improvement is the source of much of the anger being channeled left and right. The current refugee crisis is but a prelude to the scale of movement we will see when several degrees of warming starts to hit. And look I'm a natural pessimist. I tend to think we are past the point of no return in making the changes necessary to solve these issues. It's like we are living though a car crash shot in slow motion.
You can make the point without making an unhelpful insult
Aren't these people just the same as the ones who only get their news just from tabloids or the 30 minutes news program on the BBC ? At best with Twitter there's the a chance someone might click a link on to another story and so on. But essentially its nothing more than a platform(In the same a newspaper is just a couple of sheets of paper clipped together)that can be twisted and turn to meet a certain agenda.
I'm still of the opinion that most people's reasoning to vote for a party are incredibly simply - ''she sounds like a strong leader'', ''I feel safe with him as a leader'', ''he looks to nerdy to be a leader''. And that won't change for a very long time.
As for the reasons behide the rise of Corbyn(Similar Bernie Sanders or Trump)I would say that has a lot to do with the fall of the 90's/mid 2000 ''center'' politics (Pretty much anyone after Thatcher)and it's non ability to make any concrete changes, good or bad (Well expect in foreign policy where the ''center'' has blown to shit most of the middle east'').
Another day, another Owen Smith speech where his words have to be clarified. What a speaker.
In A Level History I remember being taught that revolutions happen when you have a period of rapid improvement that comes to an abrupt end. NOT when things are really shit. When things are really shit, people are too busy making ends meet, too busy trying to provide and keep their head above water. People dont want to risk what they have. But when things are actually relatively comfortable - so you dont have mass famine or starvation, but rather disaffection and a vague sense that things are no longer improving in the way they previously had been, and especially among the middle classes, rather than the working classes (who need to be led) - that is when people rise up.
So "the great expansion" followed by "the financial crisis" followed by a massive recession in which everyone is struggling to make sense of what is happening and adjusting to the new realities, followed by - and this is the killer - terminally weak growth and a general lack of confidence that things will ever be like they were pre 2007, fits the bill for a revolution, precisely.
So "the great expansion" followed by "the financial crisis" followed by a massive recession in which everyone is struggling to make sense of what is happening and adjusting to the new realities, followed by - and this is the killer - terminally weak growth and a general lack of confidence that things will ever be like they were pre 2007, fits the bill for a revolution, precisely.
And there you have it. Exactly the kind of over the top personal attacks that comes from the echo chamber stuff referred to above.
This entire 'movement', that Owen Smith is the face of, is to replace a leader who "struggles to get his message across". So far his speeches/interviews have required so much clarification that they may as well have been made by Officer Crabtree.I've only started looking into the French Revolution but didn't that happen mainly due to such things as starvation ? Although over all I agree that for better or worse things are moving.
I thought the starvation was earlier, and by 1789 things had started to ease. So the starvation was definitely a factor, in terms of creating the anger, the motive, for revolution. But the revolution itself didnt happen when the starvation was at its most acute, but rather when things had started to improve again - but not sufficiently quickly, or inclusively, to satisfy the demands of the people. Especially the middle class.
But to be honest Im not sure, it has been a long time since I studied it so I might have got it wrong.
Thanks.
No he's just a poor leader and unappealing to the public. Thats exactly why Angela Smith didnt want to make it about policy and why Owen Smith is trying for a platform of the same policies.
The only extreme policy he's publically championed is the non-renewal of trident which he allowed a free vote on.
Momentum which perhaps are trying to gain traction via Corbyn could be considered 'extreme' such is the nature or any activist group.
I'd continue to argue that echo chamber is just one in a long line of buzz words but perhaps it just doesnt apply to me or anyone i know. Twitter by way of its audience being of a certain demographic will suffer some group think but thats no different to those who consume the sun and poor quality radio journalism such as five live. Thats exaxtly what has allowed the immigration/scroungers mantra to thrive.
This is far, far more alarming than that earlier poll
29% of 2015 Labour voters prefer Theresa May as Prime Minister to Corbyn. And only 39% of them prefer Corbyn, the rest aren't sure. The figure in favour of Corbyn among all voters is 18%.
Usual caveats apply, May's on her honeymoon period and the economy's not long away from having a few shocks. But this is an example of what Labour's real floor of support is. Getting under 25% in a GE is looking a grimly real prospect.
29% of 2015 Labour voters prefer Theresa May as Prime Minister to Corbyn. And only 39% of them prefer Corbyn, the rest aren't sure. The figure in favour of Corbyn among all voters is 18%.
Usual caveats apply, May's on her honeymoon period and the economy's not long away from having a few shocks. But this is an example of what Labour's real floor of support is. Getting under 25% in a GE is looking a grimly real prospect.
The timing makes this rather a pointless poll but i think your right about the floor.
Im sure the PLP will be happy with themselves at the damage they've caused.
Labour's headline figure is 28%. So in fact, the party in parliament is running 10 points higher than Corbyn personally. Maybe people just think Corbyn would be a terrible Prime Minister?
Yikes that'll be the death of him with such hard left politics. Also reversing cuts to Corp Tax, IHT, CGT, 200 billion of investment.
Tory Times with poll shocker. Why does anyone beleive these anymore is beyond me. For or against.
@Ubik makes a good point - if the PLP think he is a poor leader who cant get his message over and engage with voters at large, and polls show that voters at large dont rate him - and indeed rate him personally with less regard than they have for the party then just perhaps its time to stop being mardy and blaming murdoch and blairites or the plp or basically anybody but Corbyn and accept that he will lead the party to disaster unless they get rid quick (which they wont and it will make a split inevitable)
Ah come on the sudden drop isnt to do with anything but the PLPs actions. Now you can say its the public accepting the PLPs advice and that would be fair enough but its the PLP and their media campaign that has caused this latest poll result.
I think May appearing a very good leader so far probably also factors in to it.
Feck sake, just caught up on the Owen Smith stuff this morning. Not only does he produce a policy plan that's unelectable, he puts in some casual misogyny against May. Seriously wondering what the point is anymore.
On the subject of whether opposition to Corbyn is principally a matter of "policy" or "leadership qualities". I know the PLP is at pains to constantly stress it is entirely the latter, and that they in fact agree (largely) when it comes to policy.
Do people find that credible? It seems to me that the PLP first saw him as a dangerous leftist trotskyite and were opposed to him on that basis right from the start. But then they had to come to terms with the popularity of his ideas and the success of Momentum and the growth of the party membership. All of which basically meant they had to pivot to actually agreeing with his policies, despite the fact that the media still refers to him as "hard left". So then you got the emergence of this idea that its all about his leadership skills, or lack of them. Not that this isnt also an issue - looking at him I can see clear as day it IS an issue. But it isnt THE issue, is it? If you talk to the people who used to be the powerful figures in the party, they are the centrists. They are the ones who would advocate "austerity lite", even if they feel it wasnt well marketed under Milliband. They would argue that "swing voters" are concerned about the deficit, and the Labour cant win unless it presents a credible plan to cut it, only more fairly, and more slowly, than the Tories. That's austerity lite. And that's NOT agreeing with Carbyn on policy.
So yes, the point I would make is that it seems to me that Labour is pretending to be united on policy and divided only on Corbyn personally, as a leader. But that is simply about keeping members on board. Trying to wrestle back the party from the leftists. As soon as (IF) they do those policies go out the window.
Do people find that credible? It seems to me that the PLP first saw him as a dangerous leftist trotskyite and were opposed to him on that basis right from the start. But then they had to come to terms with the popularity of his ideas and the success of Momentum and the growth of the party membership. All of which basically meant they had to pivot to actually agreeing with his policies, despite the fact that the media still refers to him as "hard left". So then you got the emergence of this idea that its all about his leadership skills, or lack of them. Not that this isnt also an issue - looking at him I can see clear as day it IS an issue. But it isnt THE issue, is it? If you talk to the people who used to be the powerful figures in the party, they are the centrists. They are the ones who would advocate "austerity lite", even if they feel it wasnt well marketed under Milliband. They would argue that "swing voters" are concerned about the deficit, and the Labour cant win unless it presents a credible plan to cut it, only more fairly, and more slowly, than the Tories. That's austerity lite. And that's NOT agreeing with Carbyn on policy.
So yes, the point I would make is that it seems to me that Labour is pretending to be united on policy and divided only on Corbyn personally, as a leader. But that is simply about keeping members on board. Trying to wrestle back the party from the leftists. As soon as (IF) they do those policies go out the window.
So Jeremy Corbyn has nothing to do with the public's perception of Jeremy Corbyn, with the exception of the already devoted fans of Jez? That sounds like quite the failing on his team's part, a complete failure to get any sort of message across.
but that will be the fault of murdoch and blairites no doubt and if we paid more attention Jezza, Chairman Mcdonnel, Abbot Burgdon and Seamus are actually doing a grand job but we are all too brainwashed / thick to recognise it... echo chamber etc
Yes, this annoys me no end. Like offering Corbyn the "Presidency", as if he's the arbiter of modern Labourism, feck the feck off, the guy is toxic and idolises the old Chavez regime in Venezuela for the sake of all that is holy.
People like Kendall don't pander, of course, but 4.5% within the party doesn't bode overly well!
I have no doubt that what we are seeing at the moment can largely be blamed on the PLP. Think about how you view the Tories, and if they were acting how the PLP have been acting how that would affect your perception of May (or Cameron, if you'd prefer).