RugbyRebels

kk67 wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

kk67 wrote:
That's because our predominantly right wing media portray conviction politicians as being loonies and many of your centrist Parliamentarians now do likewise. We're constantly being told we need more business leaders in Parliament but in my humble opinion that's exactly what has got us in such a mess in the first place. Even Michael Portillo now accepts that an unregulated free market is going to eat itself and us.

But I guess if big business is paying you 10k for 3 hours consultancy work you pretty much do as you're told.

Yes, yes. We can't think for ourselves. We're all puppets of the main stream media etc etc

I always love how people suddenly think that people who they've always disagreed with are suddenly correct when they hold a similar opinion. Me, if someone I've always thought was wrong suddenly agrees with me then I question my own position.

I always remember suddenly realising that I agreed with quite a few of David Aaronovitch's (sp?) opinion pieces and immediately felt he'd moved towards my way of thinking. I dug through a few of his old pieces and realised that we'd both moved towards each other.

I guess if Iranian and Russian state media are paying Corbyn then he'll do as they tell him.

Well,....not everyone in this country takes part in political debate aside from reading the tabloids so the control of the media is critical. Murdoch, Desmond, the Rothermere's and the Lebedev bros...hardly representative is it..?.

I was told that people become more conservative with age but the gross corruption that is at epidemic levels in public life makes me feel that only a more radical approach is going to achieve anything.

kk67 wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

kk67 wrote:
That's because our predominantly right wing media portray conviction politicians as being loonies and many of your centrist Parliamentarians now do likewise. We're constantly being told we need more business leaders in Parliament but in my humble opinion that's exactly what has got us in such a mess in the first place. Even Michael Portillo now accepts that an unregulated free market is going to eat itself and us.

But I guess if big business is paying you 10k for 3 hours consultancy work you pretty much do as you're told.

Yes, yes. We can't think for ourselves. We're all puppets of the main stream media etc etc

I always love how people suddenly think that people who they've always disagreed with are suddenly correct when they hold a similar opinion. Me, if someone I've always thought was wrong suddenly agrees with me then I question my own position.

I always remember suddenly realising that I agreed with quite a few of David Aaronovitch's (sp?) opinion pieces and immediately felt he'd moved towards my way of thinking. I dug through a few of his old pieces and realised that we'd both moved towards each other.

I guess if Iranian and Russian state media are paying Corbyn then he'll do as they tell him.

Well,....not everyone in this country takes part in political debate aside from reading the tabloids so the control of the media is critical. Murdoch, Desmond, the Rothermere's and the Lebedev bros...hardly representative is it..?.

I was told that people become more conservative with age but the gross corruption that is at epidemic levels in public life makes me feel that only a more radical approach is going to achieve anything.

Digby wrote:

kk67 wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Yes, yes. We can't think for ourselves. We're all puppets of the main stream media etc etc

I always love how people suddenly think that people who they've always disagreed with are suddenly correct when they hold a similar opinion. Me, if someone I've always thought was wrong suddenly agrees with me then I question my own position.

I always remember suddenly realising that I agreed with quite a few of David Aaronovitch's (sp?) opinion pieces and immediately felt he'd moved towards my way of thinking. I dug through a few of his old pieces and realised that we'd both moved towards each other.

I guess if Iranian and Russian state media are paying Corbyn then he'll do as they tell him.

Well,....not everyone in this country takes part in political debate aside from reading the tabloids so the control of the media is critical. Murdoch, Desmond, the Rothermere's and the Lebedev bros...hardly representative is it..?.

I was told that people become more conservative with age but the gross corruption that is at epidemic levels in public life makes me feel that only a more radical approach is going to achieve anything.

Tabloid sales really aren't that high, most people in the country don't read a paper.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Digby wrote:

kk67 wrote:
Well,....not everyone in this country takes part in political debate aside from reading the tabloids so the control of the media is critical. Murdoch, Desmond, the Rothermere's and the Lebedev bros...hardly representative is it..?.

I was told that people become more conservative with age but the gross corruption that is at epidemic levels in public life makes me feel that only a more radical approach is going to achieve anything.

Tabloid sales really aren't that high, most people in the country don't read a paper.

And those that do tend to seek out one which accords with their prejudices.

Digby wrote: Tabloid sales really aren't that high, most people in the country don't read a paper.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: And those that do tend to seek out one which accords with their prejudices.

Mellsblue wrote:

morepork wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: You seem to have missed the point and just decided to become all hyperbolic in its place.

But no, I don't think that will happen. Just as I don't believe we'd have a Nazi Germany if Cash became PM. Doesn't mean that I'm not worried about the prospect of a lurch to the left Just as many socialists went in to hyperbole overload after the last election.

Countering perceived hyperbole with anecdotal hyperbole. Nice. Best we just leave things as they are then.

I witnessed first hand such hyperbole on wide and varied media. To me it's not anecdotal.

My point is that, just as many would see Fox as PM as dangerous so people see Corbyn as PM as dangerous. Myself, who is quite happy to see power float around the middle whilst preferably just to the right, I see both scenarios as dangerous. Though, for some reason you took that to mean that I thought Corbyn would turn the UK into some international outcast. Perhaps we have different ideas of what dangerous is. To me it's a lurch away from what has been the centre ground since I was born, whether that be left or right. For someone who waxes lyrical about the dangerous free marketeers in the NZ political system I thought you'd understand.

morepork wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

morepork wrote:

Countering perceived hyperbole with anecdotal hyperbole. Nice. Best we just leave things as they are then.

I witnessed first hand such hyperbole on wide and varied media. To me it's not anecdotal.

My point is that, just as many would see Fox as PM as dangerous so people see Corbyn as PM as dangerous. Myself, who is quite happy to see power float around the middle whilst preferably just to the right, I see both scenarios as dangerous. Though, for some reason you took that to mean that I thought Corbyn would turn the UK into some international outcast. Perhaps we have different ideas of what dangerous is. To me it's a lurch away from what has been the centre ground since I was born, whether that be left or right. For someone who waxes lyrical about the dangerous free marketeers in the NZ political system I thought you'd understand.

Thanks for the critcism, but NZ and the UK are cast in the same mold. Politicians in both countries push this centre ground myth on stage and cater to slash and sell behind the scenes. When they are done, they get a nice cushy payout on the board of directors somewhere.

kk67 wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: And those that do tend to seek out one which accords with their prejudices.

Yeah. £360 pa for the Times. £360m turnover from 140,000 subscribers in 2013.

Stom wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Digby wrote:
Tabloid sales really aren't that high, most people in the country don't read a paper.

And those that do tend to seek out one which accords with their prejudices.

Actually, I feel that, especially nowadays, Tabloid readers have been reading the same paper for decades. They're not new readers (unless children of old readers, sometimes), and as the paper has changed its tone towards one problem or another, the individuals PoV is also changed. That's why it's dangerous.

The younger generation are more likely to gather their news from Facebook, Twitter, etc., which is why the classification of FB, Twitter, etc., as tech companies and not media companies is also dangerous. Newspapers were not classed as tech just because they had printing presses...

But, sorry, that's a different discussion

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Stom wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
And those that do tend to seek out one which accords with their prejudices.

Actually, I feel that, especially nowadays, Tabloid readers have been reading the same paper for decades. They're not new readers (unless children of old readers, sometimes), and as the paper has changed its tone towards one problem or another, the individuals PoV is also changed. That's why it's dangerous.

The younger generation are more likely to gather their news from Facebook, Twitter, etc., which is why the classification of FB, Twitter, etc., as tech companies and not media companies is also dangerous. Newspapers were not classed as tech just because they had printing presses...

But, sorry, that's a different discussion

That's why the Sunday Times supported Remain whilst The Times was Leave.

Mellsblue wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Stom wrote:
Actually, I feel that, especially nowadays, Tabloid readers have been reading the same paper for decades. They're not new readers (unless children of old readers, sometimes), and as the paper has changed its tone towards one problem or another, the individuals PoV is also changed. That's why it's dangerous.

The younger generation are more likely to gather their news from Facebook, Twitter, etc., which is why the classification of FB, Twitter, etc., as tech companies and not media companies is also dangerous. Newspapers were not classed as tech just because they had printing presses...

But, sorry, that's a different discussion

That's why the Sunday Times supported Remain whilst The Times was Leave.

T'other way round. Yet The Times still had prominent Brexit proponents writing opinion pieces. It's one of the things I like about The Times, they will regularly have opinion pieces from those who won't hold anywhere near a similar view to the average Times reader.

kk67 wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
That's why the Sunday Times supported Remain whilst The Times was Leave.

T'other way round. Yet The Times still had prominent Brexit proponents writing opinion pieces. It's one of the things I like about The Times, they will regularly have opinion pieces from those who won't hold anywhere near a similar view to the average Times reader.

And how do you feel about the Murdoch press simultaneously supporting and refusing the Scottish vote. Depending on where they were selling their bog roll.
Let's not kid ourselves.......the Murdoch press will support anything that makes a buck. He's a better PT Barnum than Trump......but they're both morons who think they deserve to run the planet. We are already in Jonathon Price territory.

Mellsblue wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Stom wrote:
Actually, I feel that, especially nowadays, Tabloid readers have been reading the same paper for decades. They're not new readers (unless children of old readers, sometimes), and as the paper has changed its tone towards one problem or another, the individuals PoV is also changed. That's why it's dangerous.

The younger generation are more likely to gather their news from Facebook, Twitter, etc., which is why the classification of FB, Twitter, etc., as tech companies and not media companies is also dangerous. Newspapers were not classed as tech just because they had printing presses...

But, sorry, that's a different discussion

That's why the Sunday Times supported Remain whilst The Times was Leave.

T'other way round. Yet The Times still had prominent Brexit proponents writing opinion pieces. It's one of the things I like about The Times, they will regularly have opinion pieces from those who won't hold anywhere near a similar view to the average Times reader.

Mellsblue wrote:Corbyn's reshuffle doesn't exactly scream rapprochement.

Diane Abbot to shadow Home Secretary, Winterton moved from chief whip, and the new shadow defence secretary is anti-Trident. The lady who ran the 'independent' inquiry into anti-semitism in the party is now shadow attorney general.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Corbyn's reshuffle doesn't exactly scream rapprochement.

Diane Abbot to shadow Home Secretary, Winterton moved from chief whip, and the new shadow defence secretary is anti-Trident. The lady who ran the 'independent' inquiry into anti-semitism in the party is now shadow attorney general.

I really don't get why it should. He won. For whatever reason the views of most of the PLP are now rump views in the context of the Labour Party as a whole. The PLP need to get over themselves and shut up for a bit. They need to try to influence policy from the background and concentrate on the tories at least until Corbyn comes up with policies they can't support.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Corbyn's reshuffle doesn't exactly scream rapprochement.

Diane Abbot to shadow Home Secretary, Winterton moved from chief whip, and the new shadow defence secretary is anti-Trident. The lady who ran the 'independent' inquiry into anti-semitism in the party is now shadow attorney general.

I really don't get why it should. He won. For whatever reason the views of most of the PLP are now rump views in the context of the Labour Party as a whole. The PLP need to get over themselves and shut up for a bit. They need to try to influence policy from the background and concentrate on the tories at least until Corbyn comes up with policies they can't support.

Mellsblue wrote:Rumours that Blair is reaching out to old donors and contacts with a view to fronting a new party. Perhaps he and D Miliband will come charging in on their white horse to save the centre-left.

We live turbulent but interesting times.

jared_7 wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Rumours that Blair is reaching out to old donors and contacts with a view to fronting a new party. Perhaps he and D Miliband will come charging in on their white horse to save the centre-left.

We live turbulent but interesting times.

Centre-left?

Mellsblue wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Corbyn's reshuffle doesn't exactly scream rapprochement.

Diane Abbot to shadow Home Secretary, Winterton moved from chief whip, and the new shadow defence secretary is anti-Trident. The lady who ran the 'independent' inquiry into anti-semitism in the party is now shadow attorney general.

I really don't get why it should. He won. For whatever reason the views of most of the PLP are now rump views in the context of the Labour Party as a whole. The PLP need to get over themselves and shut up for a bit. They need to try to influence policy from the background and concentrate on the tories at least until Corbyn comes up with policies they can't support.

Agree with you but he and his allies have said there would be compromise. If he'd come out and said that he had an overwhelming mandate and he'd take the party in which ever direction he liked then I wouldn't argue with that, but he didn't.

Mellsblue wrote:Rumours that Blair is reaching out to old donors and contacts with a view to fronting a new party. Perhaps he and D Miliband will come charging in on their white horse to save the centre-left.

We live turbulent but interesting times.

fivepointer wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:
I really don't get why it should. He won. For whatever reason the views of most of the PLP are now rump views in the context of the Labour Party as a whole. The PLP need to get over themselves and shut up for a bit. They need to try to influence policy from the background and concentrate on the tories at least until Corbyn comes up with policies they can't support.

Agree with you but he and his allies have said there would be compromise. If he'd come out and said that he had an overwhelming mandate and he'd take the party in which ever direction he liked then I wouldn't argue with that, but he didn't.

There wont be much compromise, if any. Corbyn and McDonnell simply aren't interested.

There are 3 things that Corbyn could do which would help party unity at Westminster enormously.

Banish all talk of deselection
Properly support and stand with his MP's who are receiving abuse
Agree to some form of shadow cabinet election

He's shown little interest in doing any of these things so I don't expect him to properly "reach out"

The PLP, or elements of it, do need to shut up and accept Corbyn won and for now is fireproof. Their best bet is to wait for him to falter - which he will - and for his support base to erode.