RugbyRebels

Mellsblue wrote:Here is what would’ve happened had Corbyn won the election, obvs:

https://www.politicshome.com/thehouse/a ... l-election

Sandydragon wrote:Hang on, Corbyn was as pro Brexit as any of the ERG.

And pacifism over Syria hasn’t helped anyone, least of all the Ukraine.

Economically the pressure would have been to nationalise everything and tax the rich. So on top of Brexit and pandemic concerns, we would have had the most wealthy disappear and tax their tax receipts with them and had the chaos of nationalisation across the board.

If Labour had a sensible leader at the last election then I wouldn’t have voted for Boris. Corbyn and his far left mates always put off centralist voters. Starmer I’m more comfortable with, even if some of his front bench are a nod to the Labour left.

Stom wrote:As another aside, sorry Puja, but we just elected the Victator again…you can’t trust the electorate. The map was quite literally blue in Budapest and Orange everywhere else. Very, very sad.

Puja wrote:

Stom wrote:As another aside, sorry Puja, but we just elected the Victator again…you can’t trust the electorate. The map was quite literally blue in Budapest and Orange everywhere else. Very, very sad.

My sincere condolences. Will you stay and hope things get better or look at your options of moving?

Puja

Stom wrote:The press really has a lot to answer for, and therefore Blair has a lot to answer for, especially when it comes to press reform. A free press is essential to a functioning democracy.

We have no free press in Hungary, ergo no functioning democracy.
No free press in Russia, ergo no functioning democracy.
A worsening press situation in the UK and democracy is under threat…

It’s not good.

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Here is what would’ve happened had Corbyn won the election, obvs:

https://www.politicshome.com/thehouse/a ... l-election

Seems unbiased.

Sandydragon wrote:Hang on, Corbyn was as pro Brexit as any of the ERG.

And pacifism over Syria hasn’t helped anyone, least of all the Ukraine.

Economically the pressure would have been to nationalise everything and tax the rich. So on top of Brexit and pandemic concerns, we would have had the most wealthy disappear and tax their tax receipts with them and had the chaos of nationalisation across the board.

If Labour had a sensible leader at the last election then I wouldn’t have voted for Boris. Corbyn and his far left mates always put off centralist voters. Starmer I’m more comfortable with, even if some of his front bench are a nod to the Labour left.

Given that he ran on a promise of a second referendum and staying within the customs union, that doesn't seem true. He might have had personal opinions, but appeared willing to compromise on the matter, which is more than the ERG are capable of.

Would military intervention in Syria have improved Syria's situation? In what way?

You and I will have to agree disagree on the economic wreckage that would be left after mildly increasing taxes to a level that is proven in the real world to be waaaaaay under the Laffer curve. We will also have to agree to disagree over certain services being better served in public hands. Both of those are entrenched positions and I don't think there's much value batting those backwards and forwards on a hypothetical.

Puja

Son of Mathonwy wrote:Snip

Son of Mathonwy wrote:3) What dangerous Ukraine policy might Johnson advance if he thinks it will distract from his own political predicament.

Mellsblue wrote:Corbyn interview on Times Radio today:

‘Corbyn, a passionate opponent of western military interventions over recent decades, was also asked whether if he were prime minister he would be “supplying all the weapons that this country and others are supplying now” to Ukraine.

Corbyn replied: “I would be supporting Ukraine’s right to defend itself. But I would be also making the point, which I have made in this interview, that we have to also be — which I don’t detect from anything Boris Johnson or Biden have said — actually demanding some kind of dialogue and peace. There has to be. I absolutely condemn Putin and what Russia has done.”

Asked if he admired President Zelensky of Ukraine, Corbyn replied: “I’ve never met him. I don’t know.” After John Pienaar, the interviewer, responded: “Well, I’ve never met him and I admire him, do you admire him?” Corbyn said: “I think he speaks well, and I admire that.”’


He did bring himself to say the war wasn’t the fault of NATO, which I suppose is a step in the right direction from the Stop the War statement he signed.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Here is what would’ve happened had Corbyn won the election, obvs:

https://www.politicshome.com/thehouse/a ... l-election

Seems unbiased.

Sandydragon wrote:Hang on, Corbyn was as pro Brexit as any of the ERG.

And pacifism over Syria hasn’t helped anyone, least of all the Ukraine.

Economically the pressure would have been to nationalise everything and tax the rich. So on top of Brexit and pandemic concerns, we would have had the most wealthy disappear and tax their tax receipts with them and had the chaos of nationalisation across the board.

If Labour had a sensible leader at the last election then I wouldn’t have voted for Boris. Corbyn and his far left mates always put off centralist voters. Starmer I’m more comfortable with, even if some of his front bench are a nod to the Labour left.

Given that he ran on a promise of a second referendum and staying within the customs union, that doesn't seem true. He might have had personal opinions, but appeared willing to compromise on the matter, which is more than the ERG are capable of.

Would military intervention in Syria have improved Syria's situation? In what way?

You and I will have to agree disagree on the economic wreckage that would be left after mildly increasing taxes to a level that is proven in the real world to be waaaaaay under the Laffer curve. We will also have to agree to disagree over certain services being better served in public hands. Both of those are entrenched positions and I don't think there's much value batting those backwards and forwards on a hypothetical.

Puja

I was going to put down my views in detail on a hypothetical Corbyn government vs the Johnson reality, but I'm pretty much in agreement with Puja, eg we'd have been better off because of:
1) Final referendum on Brexit,
2) If Brexit had occurred, it would have been a soft one, with minimal trade barriers arising.
3) Our initial approach to Covid wouldn't have been characterized by libertarianism, laziness, headline-chasing and British exceptionalism.
4) Covid would have been an opportunity to build up the NHS (and make use of its expertise) rather than to further privatise it, to enrich Tory doners, families and friends, and anyone who wanted a loan wouldn't have to pay back, whilst crashing the economy, wasting billions and killing more than any other European nation.
5) Genuine green policies.
6) Nationalisation of utilities.
7) Poverty reduction rather than the opposite.
8) No Priti Patel.

I will say that Ukraine is the first issue over which I have any doubts whatsoever about my preference for Corbyn over Johnson. I do find myself more in agreement with the current UK position than what I imagine would have been Corbyn's, with the following caveats:
1) Johnson's approach did not deter Putin.
2) Corbyn would have been much less welcoming to oligarchs.
3) What dangerous Ukraine policy might Johnson advance if he thinks it will distract from his own political predicament?
4) A Corbyn government would not necessarily follow Corbyn's current views on NATO (eg Labour's 2019 position on Brexit wasn't Corbyn's).

On balance, although Corbyn is hardly my ideal Prime Minister, I still wish he had won in 2019.

Sandydragon wrote: You just can’t make this up can you? Without NATO, the countries of Eastern Europe would be totally on their own against Russia. Which of course he knows but as a Cold War dinosaur, anti Americanism and anti nato is all he’s really got.

Sandydragon wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Puja wrote:
Seems unbiased.



Given that he ran on a promise of a second referendum and staying within the customs union, that doesn't seem true. He might have had personal opinions, but appeared willing to compromise on the matter, which is more than the ERG are capable of.

Would military intervention in Syria have improved Syria's situation? In what way?

You and I will have to agree disagree on the economic wreckage that would be left after mildly increasing taxes to a level that is proven in the real world to be waaaaaay under the Laffer curve. We will also have to agree to disagree over certain services being better served in public hands. Both of those are entrenched positions and I don't think there's much value batting those backwards and forwards on a hypothetical.

Puja

I was going to put down my views in detail on a hypothetical Corbyn government vs the Johnson reality, but I'm pretty much in agreement with Puja, eg we'd have been better off because of:
1) Final referendum on Brexit,
2) If Brexit had occurred, it would have been a soft one, with minimal trade barriers arising.
3) Our initial approach to Covid wouldn't have been characterized by libertarianism, laziness, headline-chasing and British exceptionalism.
4) Covid would have been an opportunity to build up the NHS (and make use of its expertise) rather than to further privatise it, to enrich Tory doners, families and friends, and anyone who wanted a loan they wouldn't have to pay back, whilst crashing the economy, wasting billions and killing more than any other European nation.
5) Genuine green policies.
6) Nationalisation of utilities.
7) Poverty reduction rather than the opposite.
8) No Priti Patel.

I will say that Ukraine is the first issue over which I have any doubts whatsoever about my preference for Corbyn over Johnson. I do find myself more in agreement with the current UK position than what I imagine would have been Corbyn's, with the following caveats:
1) Johnson's approach did not deter Putin.
2) Corbyn would have been much less welcoming to oligarchs.
3) What dangerous Ukraine policy might Johnson advance if he thinks it will distract from his own political predicament?
4) A Corbyn government would not necessarily follow Corbyn's current views on NATO (eg Labour's 2019 position on Brexit wasn't Corbyn's).

On balance, although Corbyn is hardly my ideal Prime Minister, I still wish he had won in 2019.

I’ll refer back to privatisation and the problems that would have caused on top of Brexit and covid. I suppose we would all have had free broadband so that’s something.

Stom wrote:Without a change in the way the press works, though, he’s going to struggle to get enough power to make any real change, just like in many other countries across the globe. It’s very depressing.

Mikey Brown wrote:

Stom wrote:Without a change in the way the press works, though, he’s going to struggle to get enough power to make any real change, just like in many other countries across the globe. It’s very depressing.

Yep, though I wouldn't limit that to Starmer. Depressing indeed.

But when compared to viewers in the unpaid group who had less incentive to watch CNN, those in the main group who changed their viewing for a month were:

more likely to agree that if Trump made a mistake, Fox News would not cover it;
more likely to believe that the Trump campaign was not taking significant precautions against COVID at its campaign rallies;
less likely to believe that Democrats were trying to steal the 2020 election with fraudulent mail-in ballots and more likely to support voting by mail;
less likely to believe that if Biden were elected, more police would be shot by Black Lives Matter activists; and
generally more critical in their evaluations of Trump and Republican politicians.

"We're not turning them into an MSNBC or CNN audience," Broockman said. "But they start to realize, "You know, maybe Trump isn't doing as good a job on handling the coronavirus as I thought." They start to be aware of some new information, and they're not just rejecting it as fake news. They're saying, "I still like Trump, but maybe he could do a better job at this.'"

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote:

Stom wrote:Without a change in the way the press works, though, he’s going to struggle to get enough power to make any real change, just like in many other countries across the globe. It’s very depressing.

Yep, though I wouldn't limit that to Starmer. Depressing indeed.

Hopefully Starmer has some secret plan to block the papers from being controlled by individuals (or groups of related parties).

This is interesting - the effect of switching from Fox News to CNN for 4 weeks:
https://phys.org/news/2022-04-fox-news- ... p-cnn.html

But when compared to viewers in the unpaid group who had less incentive to watch CNN, those in the main group who changed their viewing for a month were:

more likely to agree that if Trump made a mistake, Fox News would not cover it;
more likely to believe that the Trump campaign was not taking significant precautions against COVID at its campaign rallies;
less likely to believe that Democrats were trying to steal the 2020 election with fraudulent mail-in ballots and more likely to support voting by mail;
less likely to believe that if Biden were elected, more police would be shot by Black Lives Matter activists; and
generally more critical in their evaluations of Trump and Republican politicians.

"We're not turning them into an MSNBC or CNN audience," Broockman said. "But they start to realize, "You know, maybe Trump isn't doing as good a job on handling the coronavirus as I thought." They start to be aware of some new information, and they're not just rejecting it as fake news. They're saying, "I still like Trump, but maybe he could do a better job at this.'"

The effects disappeared after 2 months, but imagine the impact of a lifetime's exposure to the Daily Mail. . .

Which Tyler wrote:
Blackford says "The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is a liar"
No-one asks him to correct the record or withdraw the remark

morepork wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Mikey Brown wrote: Yep, though I wouldn't limit that to Starmer. Depressing indeed.

Hopefully Starmer has some secret plan to block the papers from being controlled by individuals (or groups of related parties).

This is interesting - the effect of switching from Fox News to CNN for 4 weeks:
https://phys.org/news/2022-04-fox-news- ... p-cnn.html

But when compared to viewers in the unpaid group who had less incentive to watch CNN, those in the main group who changed their viewing for a month were:

more likely to agree that if Trump made a mistake, Fox News would not cover it;
more likely to believe that the Trump campaign was not taking significant precautions against COVID at its campaign rallies;
less likely to believe that Democrats were trying to steal the 2020 election with fraudulent mail-in ballots and more likely to support voting by mail;
less likely to believe that if Biden were elected, more police would be shot by Black Lives Matter activists; and
generally more critical in their evaluations of Trump and Republican politicians.

"We're not turning them into an MSNBC or CNN audience," Broockman said. "But they start to realize, "You know, maybe Trump isn't doing as good a job on handling the coronavirus as I thought." They start to be aware of some new information, and they're not just rejecting it as fake news. They're saying, "I still like Trump, but maybe he could do a better job at this.'"

The effects disappeared after 2 months, but imagine the impact of a lifetime's exposure to the Daily Mail. . .

We've reached peak media breakdown where where a peer reviewed study is needed to classify outright bullshit as, you know, outright bullshit. Just fuck this shit. If social media memes can drive public health policy, what hope is there for an unadulterated functional public service?

Which Tyler wrote:
Blackford says "The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is a liar"
No-one asks him to correct the record or withdraw the remark

Which Tyler wrote:
Blackford says "The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is a liar"
No-one asks him to correct the record or withdraw the remark

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

morepork wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: Hopefully Starmer has some secret plan to block the papers from being controlled by individuals (or groups of related parties).

This is interesting - the effect of switching from Fox News to CNN for 4 weeks:
https://phys.org/news/2022-04-fox-news- ... p-cnn.html


The effects disappeared after 2 months, but imagine the impact of a lifetime's exposure to the Daily Mail. . .

We've reached peak media breakdown where where a peer reviewed study is needed to classify outright bullshit as, you know, outright bullshit. Just fuck this shit. If social media memes can drive public health policy, what hope is there for an unadulterated functional public service?

It's important to know that the media don't just cater to people's opinions, they shape them too. (Not that I'm surprised.)

This makes it all the more important to regulate the media and keep them out of the hands of billionaires and politicians.