Jeremy Corbyn

Every other mainstream politician tells the public what they think we want to hear. In interviews, they are sent in with a ready worked out angle, and interviewers try to get them to admit something that goes counter to their official story.

Corbyn & co don't seem to be doing that. He has been elected on what he actually believes in, and has been campaigning on for years, so he doesn't have to spin.

Watching John McDonnell last night the interview was a discussion about the problems and the solutions he'd like to see, including many straight yes and no answers to questions. When was the last time you saw a politican do that?

Watched the speech in full.
Thought some of it was excellent, but a missed opportunity to correct the wrongs of the Milliband era and really set out the economic policy in a way that would convince sceptics.

I think he has demonstrated an extremely high level of media-saviness

Up until the first poll which showed that he was on course to become the next leader of the Labour Party the media had completely and utterly ignored Corbyn, they were far more interested in Andy Burnham and Yvette Cooper.

Corbyn didn't need the media to go from 200/1 to favourite, he achieved that while they totally blanked him.

After it was obvious that he was the favourite the media did indeed take a keen interest in him, mostly to denounce and criticise him.

Corbyn's supporters didn't need the media to tell them how to vote, his support just grew until the final result showed that he had received 50% more votes than all the other candidates put together, and greatest level of support of any Labour leader in history.

I don't know how you think Corbyn used the media - I assume that's what you mean by "media-saviness". Perhaps you think he manipulated the media so that they would denounce him as far-left extremist, deliberately misrepresent him, and criticise every conceivable aspect of his politics? ffs

For the papers, the panto element has been a godsend.

Papers have pages to fill, TV has minutes to fill. And light entertainment is always a winner while the rest of us get on with work!!

So far today the funniest thing I've encountered are your bizarre claims on this thread, which I have to be honest offer little in the way of light entertainment value.

From the guardian, supposedly a 'Snap verdict'. Who are they trying to kid? It's obviously a pre-written hatchet job. You can almost smell the sour grapes. They really need to get over Corbyn winning.

Corbyn’s speech - Snap verdict: Giving a political speech looks like a straightforward undertaking, but there’s an art and a craft to it and there is a reason why great conferences speeches succeeed. This wasn’t a great conference speech. In fact, judged technically, it was second-rate, or worse. It meandered, it had no real structure (at one point Corbyn even appeared to repeat himself), and it lacked an obvious punch. Oratory - even the low-grade stuff you get a British party conference - is about crafting messages in a form so that they resonate, and stir the heart, and lodge in the mind (at least for a week or so). With this one, it was not even clear what the one over-riding message was.

Yet that’s the old politics assessment, and the whole point about Corbyn is that he different, and that he won a surprise election victory because people were fed up with that sort of conventional statecraft. Corbyn explained this well, and perhaps the best bits in the speech were those when he mocked media commentators. The passage about sports reporters dismissing a club with a growing fan base as a failure was particularly effective. To his credit, Corbyn did not allow himself to be tempted into saying anything inauthentic. Much of the speech reflect his long career in grassroots protesting, and even the passage about how he loved Britain because of its values (the one pushed by the spin doctors, anxious to counter the negative impact of anthem-gate) sounded genuine. A more plastic figure could easily have been enticed into phoney patriotism.

Everything he said was consistent with the campaign he ran during the leadership campaign. They wanted an ethical socialist antidote to spin, and that’s what they got this afternoon - even if it went on a bit longer than some of them may have wanted.

Other left/idealist types fed up with the status quo will be enticed as well. But Corbyn had little or nothing to say to people outside the “insurgency bubble” (to coin a phrase), people not stirred by quotes form Keir Hardie, people who may even have voted Conservative. He had a lot to say on housing (or too much - he repeated himself), but he had little to say on health or education and immigration, a key issue for many, was only discussed in terms of the refugee crisis. To return to the football club analogy, the club may have 160,000 new fans. But it lost it’s last big match, it’s been relegated and, on the basis of this speech, the captain/owner hasn’t given any thought at all to why.

It was a sincere speech, and it marked a departure. But it is hard to see how it advances Labour politically.

Watching John McDonnell last night the interview was a discussion about the problems and the solutions he'd like to see, including many straight yes and no answers to questions. When was the last time you saw a politican do that?

Probably either Ken Clarke or Tony Benn and a fat lot of good it did for them.

He has been elected on what he actually believes in, and has been campaigning on for years, so he doesn't have to spin.

But can you tell me what the Labour party currently believes in? We might know what JC thinks but that doesn't seem to be relating to Labour policy, see Trident. Today JC just talked in a load of bland platitudes.

Watching John McDonnell last night the interview was a discussion about the problems and the solutions he'd like to see, including many straight yes and no answers to questions. When was the last time you saw a politican do that?

That the difference between conviction politicians and career politicians.

Conviction politicians tell it as they see, they talk and argue about what they believe to be the truth.

Career politicians on the other hand are completely prepared to argue in favour of something which they don't believe in even if they know it to be a lie.

I'm sure it's no accident that many blairite career politicians, like Blair himself of course, were lawyers.

The ability to argue in favour of something which you know to be a lie is part of the job description of a defence lawyer shirley ?

But can you tell me what the Labour party currently believes in?

No, it's a disparate group of people from a wide variety of backgrounds, it doesn't believe in any one thing. The fact that he's not just come out and announced what he thinks and has instead taken some time to talk to the party and try to come to some agreements is basically the whole point. He has after all been at the head of the party for 17 days during which he's had a conference to appear at and a cabinet to form.

Sky conducted a poll:

Here was the finding
[img] [/img]

---------------------------

Until the decided to spin it to:

[img] [/img]

I'm rather enjoying the [url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2015/sep/29/labour-conference-jeremy-corbyns-speech-politics-live ]reaction to Corbyn's speech from the media commentariat[/url]. It's becoming more and more clear that his real enemies are not the tories or the rightwing, but the people who will lose most from this new matter of fact, unspun and unscripted way of doing things. As far as labour are concerned the media are going to lose their role as panto rabble rousers. I can almost see the tories following suit.

So far today the funniest thing I've encountered are your bizarre claims on this thread, which I have to be honest offer little in the way of light entertainment value.

Sorry to have disappointed....will try harder.

dazh - Member

They really need to get over Corbyn winning.

I don't think that's the issue. The blairite-wing number 1 priority is to sabotage Corbyn's quest to be the next Labour prime minister.

They will sabotage his leadership so that he gets replaced by someone they approve of or failing that will sabotage Labour so that it doesn't win the next general election.

What terrifies the blairite-wing more than anything about Corbyn is that he will expose their lie that the only way to win a general election is by aping the Tories.

If Corbhyn nails that lie then Blair, a man with barely any credibility both within the Labour Party and the wider public, will lose that minute credibility that he still has in the eyes of some.

And for Blair to whom ego is almost as important as money that will hurt.

So self selecting poll of people watching the speech only managed a 53% 'win'. Hard to interpret that into anything meaning full at all (in fact it is meaningless). Well apart from the fact that the 20 odd million out at work wouldn't have voted.

Well apart from the fact that the 20 odd million out at work

Haven't had a chance to listen - but were they addressed directly?

No, it's a disparate group of people from a wide variety of backgrounds, it doesn't believe in any one thing.

It has to believe in something as a collective otherwise it is pointless. Your quote there could describe virtually any political party, company or organisation, but normally you'd agree on a common set of goals and work towards it.

but normally you'd agree on a common set of goals and work towards it.

Well yes, did you read the bit about where I said...

The fact that he's not just come out and announced what he thinks and has instead taken some time to talk to the party and try to come to some agreements is basically the whole point.

Sorry to have disappointed....will try harder.

Well we're coming up to the pantomime season so keep trying!!.......the light entertainment which hopefully your posts will provide will bring welcome relief!!

Threads have pages to fill so a bit of pantomime fun from your posts will be a godsend while the rest of us get on with the business of posting serious stuff!!

Understood, as I said, will try harder. Thanks for the encouragement - almost heart warming.

molgrips feel free to enlighten me then? Or does he just mean avoiding hard decisions?

That is like me moaning that The tories have not done anything I like. Its settign the bar a little unrealistically not to mention a leading question that shows your disdain. We get it you dont like him ,which is fine, but dont pretend he has failed to win you over and I wont pretend that Boris or Osbornes next speech has not won me over asthat point is a given before they even start.

Nothing he says will appeal to you as you wont be voting labour.

FWIW its a valid point to note the party is a little divided ,especially at MP level, and that he may require more than two weeks ot have a coherent narrative for the party to unite behind

He seems to be pretty democratic so far but that is being spun as him refusing to debate when that was a conference decision

As for saying Corbyn has been driven by the media that is a stretch, all of them will use it to some degree, but ernie has countered that assertion with the facts.

I am sure he will try and use the media as he wants to get a message across [ well when he forms it, but , as the sky vote spin showed, the media is clearly not setting out to help him.
Were that a referendum vote I wonder which posters would be saying it was decisive 😉

It has to believe in something as a collective otherwise it is pointless.

There are core principles, and there are current policies. The core principles of the Labour party have always been to look after the poor, the vulnerable and the working classes and stop them getting shat on by fate or the rich elite. That's what Corbyn supports openly and what got him elected as leader.

Current policies are in a state of flux, because they have just had a huge change of direction and leadership. Previous leadership was simply focused on becoming elected by telling the electorate what they wanted to hear. Problem is they were shit at it, and got found out.

Previous leadership was simply focused on becoming elected by telling the electorate what they wanted to hear. Problem is they were shit at it, and got found out.

....?

?

"The ability to argue in favour of something which you know to be a lie is part of the job description of a defence lawyer shirley ?"
Cheers for that i think if I argued my clients cases the way politicians present their policy's I would get no where with either judges or juries .A defence lawyer is best arguing from facts and principle if you are knowingly presenting a lie you are a) at risk of being struck off for being bent and b) a poor lawyer for putting yourself in that position.

Like him or not JC appears to have reinvigorated interest in politics simply by being straight with people.

if you are knowingly presenting a lie

No offence but surely many lawyers, not you obviously , dont believe what their client has said and what they are presenting and expect them to be found guilty

Is it just that they cannot say look I did but can you say this please and it is just about plausible [ stories] and plausible deniability from the lawyer?

Ie it might just be true however unlikely it seems?

Odd one as clearly some of what the defence say, in adversarial system, is a bare faced lie as they are denying it.

Not a dig at you or the profession in general to be very clear

Problem is they were shit at it, and got found out.

Were they that bad? I thought they did a good job of talking the talk to keep their core vote onside whilst the detail of their policy told a different story and didn't alienate centre ground voters. If it wasn't for the SNP in Scotland and the perceived threat of an SNP/Lab coalition I think Lab could have been the largest party. Certainly the polls made a Labour SNP coalition look almost inevitable.

It was only with hindsight the "Labour were shit" narrative took off.

Labour's approval rating hasn't exactly shot through the roof since the new regeme took over which suggests the old guard weren't far off the mark.

So a defence lawyer is stuck off for lying about their client being innocent if their client is found guilty? I'm not convinced!

The story I am always reminded of is how apparently at the start of the Iraq War the Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon (a man who I particularly dislike) was asked why the Iraqis hadn't used their weapons of mass destruction, he response was "well we've struck them so quickly that they haven't had the chance to deploy and use them".

After the war had progressed and the Iraqi forces had been clearly defeated again Hoon was asked about WMD, "why" he was asked "haven't we yet found these alleged weapons of mass destruction?".

This time answer was "well the Iraqis had so much warning that we would be taking military action against them that have had plenty of time to hide the WMDs extremely well."

When it was pointed out to Hoon what he had previously said and how this latest claim completely contradicted his original comment he apparently shrugged his shoulders and said "I'm a lawyer....would do you expect?"

It was only with hindsight the "Labour were shit" narrative took off.

Indeed. The re-writing of why Labour lost has been quite funny (and self-serving). Still as we have seen with the economy, if you fail to diagnose what exactly went wrong and why, you are unlikely to come up with the correct solution.

But is has been a useful (albeit flawed) narrative that the media can peddle even if a basic analysis of voting patterns falsifies the very idea. But since when have facts been important - look what is taken as read north of the wall!!

The re-writing of why Labour lost has been quite funny

I still suffer regular bouts of uncontrollable chuckling.

Still, it helps with my enormous sense of superiority.

On the defence lawyer side issue the key word is "knowingly." You take your clients instructions you present them with conviction even if you believe them to be untrue you are OK you take your clients instructions you present a story that you know to be untrue then you are not OK and will at best be suspended at worst jailed.
Professional duty not to mislead the court legal obligation just like anyone else not to pervert the course of justice. http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/support-services/advice/practice-notes/criminal-procedure-rules-2011/
Light reading.

Cheers for that i think if I argued my [i]clients[/i] cases the way politicians present their [i]policy's[/i] I would get no where with either judges or juries

Phew, we are succeeding then. Entertainment not lost.

Back to the "serious debate" (no really)

If Ed has chosen to use Heller's words instead of leaving it to our new man, would it have made any difference - the brand new world of politics. Old speeches and compromise galore. The king is dead, long live the king!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-34388814 (scroll down)

The SNP spin on it is quite funny too! Who needs BBC3???

Jeremy Corbyn promised to radically change Labour, but the evidence so far is that Labour is changing Jeremy Corbyn.

Mild dislexia is no obstacle in a largely oral trade.

Intentional or not?

The SNP spin on it is quite funny too!

I think I'll give a miss then......my sides are starting to ache.

I think light reading was a lie

Will read that [ ok sim read that] but i think i get the gist - lying is ok but really lying [ and knowing you really are ] is not ok.

Cheers for the link /info

Good idea, don't want to over do it.

BTW crankboy does :. http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/support-services/advice/practice-notes/criminal-procedure-rules-2011/

Let the blairite politicians off the hook or what?

outofbreath - Member

It was only with hindsight the "Labour were shit" narrative took off.

Miles off the mark, this, Labour were getting torn apart from inside and out all the way up to the last election. More so in Scotland where most people were questioning their leader's sanity never mind fitness to lead, but nationally too.

Not sure whether this is historical revisionism or people who weren't paying attention, but plenty of people were. And the Party's own initial investigation has already concluded that a third of voters said "we don't know what Labour stand for". That's shitness personified.

Miles off the mark ... Not sure whether this is historical revisionism or people who weren't paying attention

Maybe I wasn't paying attention. All the press/media I recall was saying it was too close to call right up until the exit poll was released.

Perhaps you can point me to a couple of pre-election 'Labour can't win 'cos they are blatently shit' articles that I might have missed.

Q1.Why is Labour always want to change the world?

Q2.Are they practicing naive utopian politics? Are they simply hiding some sort of sinister intentions to raise the red flag one day?

Q3.Why do they want to be full member of a bigger bureaucratic entity like EU?

Q4.Why do they think they can influence others? See Q1.

Q5.Why do people think JC (not Jesus Christ) is radical?

😯

outofbreath - Member

Perhaps you can point me to a couple of pre-election 'Labour can't win 'cos they are blatently shit' articles that I might have missed.

Nah, because you don't get to reinterpret the point like that.

But I can point you to- Ed's Stone, people not believing they could be trusted with the economy (only 16% of voters trusted them most on the economy) , the incredible mishandling of Scotland, the total failure to tackle the Tories on the economy... Let's make 5 key pledges and print them all on cards so everyone knows exactly what our 5 key pledges are, no wait, we missed one, quick... Fundamentally having every agenda set for them and making every argument on the Tories' terms is what defined Ed's leadership. Except for the rare occasions where they tried to lead with something, like One Nation, and the Tories turned it around and used it against them

Or actually, I'll just point you right back at my last post, which you selectively quoted from. A third of all voters said they didn't know what Labour stood for. This isn't failing to get people onside with your ideas; it's failing to communicate your ideas at all. That's a third of voters who can't even [i]disagree[/i] with Labour.

Labour's campaign didn't even get as far as failing to convince people to vote for them.

Channel 4 with Jon Snow talking to/interviewing the young people live at Brighton ...

Crikey, if Labour core supporters are this lot then you old people (35 yr and above) are obsolete. You might as well hang yourself now.

Northwind - Member
A third of all voters said they didn't know what Labour stood for. This isn't failing to get people onside with your ideas; it's failing to communicate your ideas at all. That's a third of voters who can't even disagree with Labour.

Very simple.

If Labour takes UK [b]out of the EU bureaucratic entirely[/b] I will vote Labour instantly and raise the red flag without asking.

Then I shall use my bureaucratic power to subdue all of you for trying to think differently. We shall then argue internally in UK until the cows come home as to how equal we want ourselves to be.

Respect the authoritaaaa ... ! I will be more equal than equal!

The first rule is to have fish & chips as compulsory dinner once a week. 😛

Indeed. The re-writing of why Labour lost has been quite funny

Yeah, right up until the 7th of May the media was telling us Labour were a serious contender and it was too close to call, as were the bookies. We now know all the parties thought the same.

Suddenly on the 8th the media are sagely telling us it was obvious all along Labour were going to lose and it was all Ed M's fault.

Haven't seen such a change of media perspective since Diana died...

Three months before the last general election there was evidence that Labour swing voters weren't supportive of Labour occupying the "centre ground"

[url= https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/01/29/three-trumps-could-win-labour-election/ ]Analysis: should Labour abandon the centre ground?[/url]

[i]"Conventional wisdom says Labour should aim for the centre ahead of the general election. New polling suggests this might not be the winning approach"[/i]

[img] [/img]

Of course because the pollsters didn't precisely predict the last general election, although they did fairly accurately predict SNP, LibDem, UKIP, and Green Party support, some will dismiss all poll findings, but the results of the poll above are way outside any reasonable margin of error, certainly outside the margin of error with regards to the general election.

Needless to say those poll findings, of swing voters no less, were completely ignored and Labour went on to the general election.

the media was telling us Labour were a serious contender and it was too close to call, as were the bookies.

You do realise that the Tories only won with a slim majority of 11 seats don't you?

And that the media were telling us that Labour were very unlikely to win a majority. There is no need to re-write history outofbreath.

It is of course true however that most people went to their polling stations on May 7 under the mistaken belief that the Tories would not win the general election.

Had they not thought that some at least would certainly have voted differently, although the figure obviously can't be quantified. In that respect I have no doubt the the opinion polls, inaccurate opinion polls as it turns out, did affect the result of the general election.

You do realise that the Tories only won with a slim majority of 11 seats don't you?

Which is 100pc consistent with my point. The post election 'Labour were obviously shit, Milliband was obviously shit' narrative is utter bollocks.

Labour were a gnat's chuff away from power sharing with the SNP with Miliband as PM. They did a pretty good job. If the media knew it was a crap campaign destined to lose they certainly didn't say so in any large numbers before the election.