The Labour Party - Part 2

[Anna B 1,414]

1 minute ago, alchresearch said:

Using "Morning Star" as a source?  Oh dear!

 

Shall we look at another source regarding what was said:

 

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk/deeply-unpleasant-chingford-labour-meeting-includes-open-attack-on-starmer-and-claim-antisemitism-had-been-weaponised-1.509240

 

 

Who is this to? I was not using 'Morning star' as a source, and I am no admirer of Starmer.

[Arnold_Lane 0]

9 minutes ago, Anna B said:

Who is this to? I was not using 'Morning star' as a source, and I am no admirer of Starmer.

Banjodeano.

[sheffbag 230]

1 hour ago, Anna B said:

No, it doesn't.

 

Labour coverage prior to the election: Blairites and known Labour enemies of Jeremy Corbyn were invited onto TV programmes such as Newsnight etc to speak, not supporters of Jeremy Corbyn's policies and certainly not Jeremy Corbyn himself. For example, they were forever reeling out bitter Liz Kendall and Yvette Cooper who both lost to Corbyn in the leadership election, and even Blair himself rubbishing Corbyn and his policies. So bad was it, that JC had to resort to Social media and old fashioned rallies all around the country (which incidently attracted thousands) to get his message across. These are now the mainstream 'fans' of Jeremy Corbyn, not hardcore 'Momentum'.

After the election is called, new rules come into play and both main parties are legally allowed equal air time on TV, and a say over who appears. This is where Jeremy began to make really serious headway in the 2017 snap election. But Labour had only 2 weeks to prepare and get the message out. But they still managed to gain 30 seats and much popularity for Corbyn and his message. It truly resonated with the public.

 

Tories learned the lessons and went into overdrive. The smearing of Corbyn was disgusting, relentless and continuous. The Tories began to claim Labour ideas as their own, and when the  2019 election was called they had a new 'charismatic' leader Boris Johnson up against a relentlessly reviled Jeremy Corbyn.

Once again when the election was called the rules on equal airtime came into play, (the press bias continued, smearing Corbyn with not even a pretence of fairness; austerity, homelessness, foodbanks etc were all ignored.) On TV Johnson and the Tories cleverly ignored their poor record completely and made it all about Brexit. Johnson knew the only TV interview that counted was up against supremely tough Andrew Neil, when he knew his lies, record and claims would be forensically examined and he would be held to account, unable to bluff his way out. So he refused to do the interview. The only time in history, as Andrew Neil pointed out, that a party leader had refused. But then he never did one serious interview, relying totally on the simplistic slogan 'Get Brexit Done' and 'I have an oven ready deal.' to get him through. Which unfortunately it did. 

 

So, a win built solely on lies and media bias.

The man is seriously useless. A figurehead with charm and charisma who avoids serious business like the plague and disappears or hides in fridges when the going gets tough, but then that's what happens when the electorate allows itself to be duped, and there is no accountability.

Anna - what has any of the above have to do with the point that Corbyn has more opportunity than any other leader to get his point across and failed (twice) which is what I was saying.  You respond with "err its doesnt" then go into commenting about the Conservatives ignoring the point about Labours failure to put its own point over. Labour (or Conservative) members cannot do anything about the other parties content, they should concentrate on getting their own message across. 

"it truly resonated with the public" errr not really. Still 50 odd seats behind the Tories at the end of the election.

For every Liz Kendall/Yvette Cooper appearance there was a Diane Abbott one

 

Edited December 4, 2020 by sheffbag

[Baron99 801]

It must be the longest pose-mortem in history?

 

12 months on from the General Election & still some are undecided as to what killed the Labour Party. 

 

I wish people would come to a conclusion as Poirot needs to establish the actual killer? 

 

I've a theory as to who did it? 

Edited December 4, 2020 by Baron99

[Pettytom 1]

10 minutes ago, Baron99 said:

It must be the longest pose-mortem in history?

 

12 months on from the General Election & still some are undecided as to what killed the Labour Party. 

 

I wish people would come to a conclusion as Poirot needs to establish the actual killer? 

 

I've a theory as to who did it? 

To be fair, twelve months on it is looking like a good election to lose.

[banjodeano 31]

1 hour ago, alchresearch said:

Using "Morning Star" as a source?  Oh dear!

 

Shall we look at another source regarding what was said:

 

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk/deeply-unpleasant-chingford-labour-meeting-includes-open-attack-on-starmer-and-claim-antisemitism-had-been-weaponised-1.509240

 

 

Using the JC.com as a source?....oh dear as well..

but dont shoot the messenger, just because the Morning Star delivers you the news, it doesnt mean it is wrong.

but lets look at what JC.com actually say...

in big bold letters they state...'Deeply unpleasant' Chingford Labour meeting includes open attack on Starmer and claim antisemitism had been 'weaponised'

well, "deeply unpleasant" straight away is a term that is all about perception, what one person finds deeply unpleasant, another person may not, JC.com would like to be offended if nobody else was, they also didn't like the statement that antisemitism has been weaponised, well that is pretty tough, but unfortunately they will have to accept that that  is what has happened.

Also they say....... 

Multiple sources confirmed to the JC that chair Gary Lefley had used Monday evening’s meeting to praise former leader Jeremy Corbyn – while accusing Sir Keir of being “in breach” of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) report by removing the whip from him.

Mr Lefley, a retired head teacher and former general secretary of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, also accused the current Labour leader of “collusion" with the Tory Party.

Addressing the meeting he said: “Keir Starmer decided this was the moment to suspend the former leader of the party and expel him from the PLP (parliamentary Labour Party).

“In doing so it is Keir Starmer, not Jeremy Corbyn, who is in breach of party rules… It is Starmer, not Corbyn who is in breach of the Human Rights Act of 1998.

“It is Starmer, not Corbyn, who is breach of the EHRC… who has plunged the party into internecine warfare. In the home of democratic socialism we must button our lip at risk of being expelled.”In her speech, vice-chair Ms Wimborne-Idrissi, a leading figure in the Jewish Voice For Labour group, attacked Mr Evans over his attempt to protect Jewish members at Labour meetings.

In comments that sparked anger from other Jewish members who attended the virtual meeting, Ms Wimborne-Idrissi suggested it was wrong Jews had been made gatekeepers of what can and cannot be discussed at meetings.

.. that seems pretty accurate also.

is it possible that you can point me to something that is factually wrong written by the Morning Star, which is different to what JC.com claims? apart from the fact that they are upset?

 

[Anna B 1,414]

On 04/12/2020 at 14:24, sheffbag said:

Anna - what has any of the above have to do with the point that Corbyn has more opportunity than any other leader to get his point across and failed (twice) which is what I was saying.  You respond with "err its doesnt" then go into commenting about the Conservatives ignoring the point about Labours failure to put its own point over. Labour (or Conservative) members cannot do anything about the other parties content, they should concentrate on getting their own message across. 

"it truly resonated with the public" errr not really. Still 50 odd seats behind the Tories at the end of the election.

For every Liz Kendall/Yvette Cooper appearance there was a Diane Abbott one

 

It has everything to do with it.

 

How can you get your message across when the media shuts you out and refuses to give you a fair hearing; when you are not invited onto television programmes to talk about your proposals and manifesto, and when the press refuses to print anything about your message/agenda?

That's not to say you won't appear in the papers, but what appears is deliberately 100% negative in the form of character assassination, words out of context and downright lies. 

 

This is not just about the Labour party/ Corbyn, it is a very serious issue for Democracy. Which is exactly why the LSE did the in depth analysis of media bias, and found it very heavily weighted against Corbyn.

 

Think about it, just about everything we know about the world, apart from our very limited personal experience, is from those two platforms. Our views on the wider world are formed by what we hear and see in the media. If you are in effect 'no-platformed' there is pretty much no way to counter it.

 

 

 

[ECCOnoob 1,050]

2 hours ago, Anna B said:

It has everything to do with it.

 

How can you get your message across when the media shuts you out and refuses to give you a fair hearing; when you are not invited onto television programmes to talk about your proposals and manifesto, and when the press refuses to print anything about your message/agenda?

That's not to say you won't appear in the papers, but what appears is deliberately 100% negative in the form of character assassination, words out of context and downright lies. 

 

This is not just about the Labour party/ Corbyn, it is a very serious issue for Democracy. Which is exactly why the LSE did the in depth analysis of media bias, and found it very heavily weighted against Corbyn.

 

Think about it, just about everything we know about the world, apart from our very limited personal experience, is from those two platforms. Our views on the wider world are formed by what we hear and see in the media. If you are in effect 'no-platformed' there is pretty much no way to counter it.

 

 

 

Internet doesn't exist in your world then?  

 

Free thinking doesn't exist in your world then? 

 

Give it up will you.  There was NO bias.  There was NO character assassination.  There was NO conspiracy.   There is a wealth of information out there from BOTH sides at ALL angles freely available at the touch of a button. 

 

There was plenty of Corbyn fan girls in the print media, television and online who were just as strong in there continual attacks on the tories.  Dont hear you whining about that 'bias'. 

 

Your wild assumptions that the wider public are so dumbed down to be entirely led by two aspects media are actually quite insulting.   Ever stop to think that it might be media simply reflecting the view of the public not the other way round.  What about the fact that traditional print and linear television is actually in heavy decline.   There are whole generations who get more news from social media than TV.  Instagram hardly known for it Tory cheerleading is it?  

 

Why can you just accept the wider populus didnt like what that failed, incompetent, nasty and stubborn "leader" offered.    He was shown up for what he was and instead of facing the facts it's just an endless deluded playing the blame game.  

 

Until certain people pull their head out of the sand the party recovery is going to be stalled for years.  

Edited December 6, 2020 by ECCOnoob

[Ridgewalk 101]

On 04/12/2020 at 12:57, alchresearch said:

Using "Morning Star" as a source?  Oh dear!

 

Shall we look at another source regarding what was said:

 

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk/deeply-unpleasant-chingford-labour-meeting-includes-open-attack-on-starmer-and-claim-antisemitism-had-been-weaponised-1.509240

 

 

Well we all know the Morning Star isn't as unbiased and objective as, the Sun, Mail, Guardian, Times, Express............on and on

[Ridgewalk 101]

On 04/12/2020 at 12:57, alchresearch said:

Using "Morning Star" as a source?  Oh dear!

 

Shall we look at another source regarding what was said:

 

https://www.thejc.com/news/uk/deeply-unpleasant-chingford-labour-meeting-includes-open-attack-on-starmer-and-claim-antisemitism-had-been-weaponised-1.509240

 

 

You're using the Jewish Chronicle as a source.!!! Prior to the 2015 general election the Jewish Chronicle asked its readership which party would they be voting for, 67% said the Conservatives. Remember the Labour Party leader at the time was  Jewish.

 

Its hardly a surprise that  a Tory leaning paper would hesitate to stick the boot into Labour.

 

The suspended secretary of the Constituency Party in Chingford  is Jewish, obviously " a self hating Jew" " not a real Jew" " the wrong type of Jew" 

 

Edited December 6, 2020 by Ridgewalk
....

[Anna B 1,414]

8 hours ago, ECCOnoob said:

Internet doesn't exist in your world then?  

 

Free thinking doesn't exist in your world then? 

 

Give it up will you.  There was NO bias.  There was NO character assassination.  There was NO conspiracy.   There is a wealth of information out there from BOTH sides at ALL angles freely available at the touch of a button. 

 

There was plenty of Corbyn fan girls in the print media, television and online who were just as strong in there continual attacks on the tories.  Dont hear you whining about that 'bias'. 

 

Your wild assumptions that the wider public are so dumbed down to be entirely led by two aspects media are actually quite insulting.   Ever stop to think that it might be media simply reflecting the view of the public not the other way round.  What about the fact that traditional print and linear television is actually in heavy decline.   There are whole generations who get more news from social media than TV.  Instagram hardly known for it Tory cheerleading is it?  

 

Why can you just accept the wider populus didnt like what that failed, incompetent, nasty and stubborn "leader" offered.    He was shown up for what he was and instead of facing the facts it's just an endless deluded playing the blame game.  

 

Until certain people pull their head out of the sand the party recovery is going to be stalled for years.  

What a pity you haven't bothered to read the report, (link below just in case.) And yes, as I've said, Jeremy Corbyn did resort to using Social media as a way of getting his message across, which is why he is so popular with young people. He was the first to do so back then. Hard to imagine now, but Social media then wasn't used as part of the political process.  

 

Indeed, following Corbyn's success with it, once the other parties realised the value of it, they all began using it. But unfortunately this has now lead to much less useful 'confirmation bias,' where the views of the reader is reflected back at them. I now get nothing but posts and articles in support of Jeremy Corbyn, and derogatory posts /articles about Boris Johnson, so I assume the reverse is true of Tory supporters. This does nothing to inform, but rather leads to even more entrenched views, and a more divided society. Free thinking seems to becoming a thing of the past, just like free speech, and a free press. As a result we have increasing legislation controlling the population, less accountability of those in charge, and less democracy.

 

Very dangerous.   

 

https://www.lse.ac.uk/media-and-communications/research/research-projects/representations-of-jeremy-corbyn

Edited December 6, 2020 by Anna B

[Arnold_Lane 0]

How many times have you posted that link now Anna?

 

Is “analysis” that selected coverage from just eight newspapers over a two month period back in 2015 still relevant?  Assuming you think it ever was.

Edited December 6, 2020 by Arnold_Lane