subvert47
I don't fight, I run away
Perhaps multiple virtual Corbyns would work
But then it's his essential humanity that impresses people, so... probably not.
Last edited:
Election incoming
- Thread starter DannyL
- Start date
-
- Tags
- battle bus boris the spider controlling the narrative craner aka nostradamus aka mystic meg cummings' cunning democracy is gamification digital manipulation flatulent casserole for the many not the few it's gonna be a rough christmas jo "squirrel killer" swinson luka's pol pot wank fantasies media bias mudslinging my bonny jo nothing is true everything is permitted punkyreggaebarty sadmanlabourparty sadmantoryparty the christmas miracle the horror the horror war room
Perhaps multiple virtual Corbyns would work
But then it's his essential humanity that impresses people, so... probably not.
I don't buy the 'unelectable' tag. I think it's a self-fulfilling prophecy propagated by the media and opposition; a term used to disenfranchise voters and delegitimise a candidate and their platform - the media target someone like Corbyn, do their utmost to ensure he isn't elected then go "see, we told you" as though it's a law of nature and not a heavily manipulated outcome.
sufi
lala
i like the sound of "structured organizing conversation" https://jacobinmag.com/2019/11/than...nds-family-conversation-presidential-election via https://boingboing.net/2019/11/28/words-to-deeds.htmlPerhaps multiple virtual Corbyns would work
But then it's his essential humanity that impresses people, so... probably not.
however, that sounds moderately intellectually demanding, and like it would need some clarity of thought, & the opportunities to make that happen are limited so instead everyone jumps to disproportionate treatment of minor issues in bad faith in service of toxic party politics instead innit, then blames conspiracy theorists!
I saw someone the other day claiming their mate said they're voting Tory because they can't forgive the Lib Dems for raising tuition fees...
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
OK, I'm going to try and answer several things in one post. Hold tight, everyone.
(although this is also a reply to several of subvert's posts)
As subvert says, it's not really ha-ha funny. Sort of sardonically, darkly humorous, or would be, if there weren't so much at stake. My point is that ever since Corbyn became leader, probably the biggest wedge dividing him and his closest supporters on one side and the majority of Labour party members, MPs and historic or potential voters on the other has been Corbyn's lifelong opposition to European integration (bear in mind he opposed the EEC long before the EU even existed). Now one of Corbyn's great strengths is that he is, undeniably, incredibly principled, and is essentially unable to say something if he doesn't wholeheartedly believe in it.
Now to be fair to him, he has moderated that impulse, and arrived at a compromise 'soft Brexit' position that, if you were a bit naive, you might think would have at least some appeal to people on both sides. But it isn't, at all. Remainers don't want it because it's unequivocally a worse deal than we have now, and there are still open questions about fundamental principles such as freedom of movement. Moreover, I think a lot of progressives see it simply as giving in to xenophobia and misinformation - Corbyn bears some blame for this because he's sympathetic to people blaming all the UK's economic ills on the EU, which literally means letting the Tories off the hook for the mess they've created (or drastically worsened) over the last decade.
Leavers, on the other hand, aren't convinced either, because most of them say "Leave means Leave" and don't want a deal that they see as "Remain in all but name". But opposition to Corbyn for *whatever* reason (see below) would *still* trump any attempt to appeal to Leave voters, I think, even if Labour literally took a carbon copy of the Tory or even BXP policy on Brexit (to the extent that such a thing exists).
And the further Labour strays from the position held by most progressive voters, voters who either usually do vote Labour or might consider it - that Brexit is a fucking catastrophe and should be stopped by any means necessary that are still compatible with parliamentary democracy - the more unappealing Labour looks, and the more votes they're going to leak to the Lib Dems, Greens, anti-Brexit independents and the regional nationalist parties. Whereas progressive voters, who are overwhelmingly pro-EU or at least anti-Brexit, would flock to a Labour party that both had a strong social-democratic manifesto *and* had supported a second referendum from day 1 with a strong preference for Remain, or "Remain and reform".
To answer Rich's other questions: it's tricky, you can't get too bogged down in detail either because people simply don't follow you, or get arsey, or because it takes too long. One of the councillors I was with today did get spoken to very sharply, borderline yelled at, by a very angry pro-Brexit guy. I guess for him, Corbyn isn't Brexity enough? I dunno. One man I spoke to said he voted Remain but thinks we should leave because Leave won the vote, which seems like taking a sense of fair play to self-defeating levels. Lots of people say they want it "over with", but either don't know or choose to ignore the many years of negotiations that would follow. Some people are amenable to discussion, of course. It's always interesting though.
So, here's the $64k question: Why is Jeremy Corbyn so unpopular? I think three general possible classes of reason can be put forward:
1) The argument most commonly put forward by Corbyites is "It's the media, duh". Now I've been at some pains to point out that I'm well aware of the generally right-wing bias of most of the newspapers, as well as the BBC. They don't particularly want any Labour government and they certainly don't want one that's going to be well to the left of the last Labour government. But to follow this line of argument, if this were the sole reason for opposition to Corbyn, then it would also have turned people against the policies Labour has adopted under Corbyn. The thing is, it hasn't: a majority of people support eight out of nine of Corbyn's key policies. luka should look away now, because I'm going to use the f-word, but it's simply factually incorrect to say "People are just too right-wing to accept Corbyn's lefty policies".
Further, there's the problem of definition creep in that sketchy phrase, "the mainstream media". It's often used interchangeably with the "Tory press" or similar phrases, as if to imply that liberal and leftist news sources simply don't exist. But I've noticed it being used not only for the Tory papers and the BBC but also the Independent, Guardian/Observer and even the New Statesman - in fact any publication that features articles mentioning Labour or Corbyn that aren't by Owen Jones or Ash Sarkar. As if the Sun has anything in common with the fucking New Statesman! There's a danger in "pro-Corbyn" being adopted as the *definition* of "left-wing", so that even a progressive publication such as TNS can be dismissed as "Blairite" or "Tory" for containing any criticism of Corbyn, even if from someone with impeccable progressive credentials.
2) Then there's the possibility that some people have well-informed and well-reasoned arguments against some of Corbyn's principles that should perhaps be listened to. By far the most important of these is the ever-present accusations of antisemitism, or if you prefer (and many people put it in these terms), an excessive tolerance for antisemitism in other figures he regards as comrades, whether focusing on criticism of "bankers" (Corbyn's shorthand for everything that's wrong with capitalism), or of Israel. Now you've made your stance on this pretty clear, so all I can really do is reiterate a point I've made before, namely: if it's not OK for white people to dismiss claims of racism by black people, why is it OK for non-Jews to dismiss claims of racism made by Jews? Surely to dismiss these claims just adds to the racism? I'm not Jewish myself, nor do I have any Jewish in-laws or close friends, but it's for that exact reason that I don't feel it's my place to dismiss the problem. And yes, there are Jews who support Corbyn, and I'm not dismissing them, either. But the asymmetry in numbers is startling. There are, after all, Muslims who vote Tory and black and Hispanic Americans who love Trump.
This aspect crosses over with point 1) above because yes, there are bad-faith 'concern trolling' articles by right-wing non-Jews who don't really care about antisemitism at all but love using it as ammo. But you need to credit Jews, especially progressive Jews, with the intelligence to spot this for themselves. And with respect to your claim that the press would be just as hostile to anyone else, bear in mind that outside of the likes of InfoWars and the like, it's not common for news stories to have literally no basis in reality whatsoever. Even claims made by the Daily Mail are usually based on something that really happened, even if they give a totally one-sided account, or exaggerate part of it, or fail to give important context, or wildly extrapolate. But consider: there hasn't been a media brouhaha about Keir Starmer endorsing a racist mural, because AFAIK, no such event has ever occurred. Tom Watson has never been accused of making baseless claims about Israel, because he hasn't. So actually, yes, I think no shortage of candidates could be found to the lead the party who would, if they didn't have total immunity, at least be much less susceptible to claims of this sort.
3) Finally there's the fact that Corbyn just smells wrong, so to speak, for a lot of people. You mention his veganism and teetotalism - in a sense, you've hit the nail right on the head. There may well be something in the British psyche that is just inimical to a lifestyle and mentality that Corbyn represents - self-denying, somewhat ascetic, obviously and conventionally virtuous. His demeanour, I think, reminds a lot of people of a somewhat strict and pedantic teacher who's permanently disappointed in them. The righteousness, which obviously attracts some people, can easily look like sanctimony. Boris Johnson, with his affairs, illegitimate kids, admissions of drug use and quite possibly frequent public intoxication, couldn't be more different. People think he'd be fun to go on the razz with.
What can be done about this, I don't know. Yeah it'd be great if we all voted for policies and not personalities, but what can you do?
Anyway, we seem to have had a rapprochement of sorts, so I'll hold off from calling you a deranged cultist if you can try not to call me a troll and a moron again? ❌
(although this is also a reply to several of subvert's posts)
As subvert says, it's not really ha-ha funny. Sort of sardonically, darkly humorous, or would be, if there weren't so much at stake. My point is that ever since Corbyn became leader, probably the biggest wedge dividing him and his closest supporters on one side and the majority of Labour party members, MPs and historic or potential voters on the other has been Corbyn's lifelong opposition to European integration (bear in mind he opposed the EEC long before the EU even existed). Now one of Corbyn's great strengths is that he is, undeniably, incredibly principled, and is essentially unable to say something if he doesn't wholeheartedly believe in it.
Now to be fair to him, he has moderated that impulse, and arrived at a compromise 'soft Brexit' position that, if you were a bit naive, you might think would have at least some appeal to people on both sides. But it isn't, at all. Remainers don't want it because it's unequivocally a worse deal than we have now, and there are still open questions about fundamental principles such as freedom of movement. Moreover, I think a lot of progressives see it simply as giving in to xenophobia and misinformation - Corbyn bears some blame for this because he's sympathetic to people blaming all the UK's economic ills on the EU, which literally means letting the Tories off the hook for the mess they've created (or drastically worsened) over the last decade.
Leavers, on the other hand, aren't convinced either, because most of them say "Leave means Leave" and don't want a deal that they see as "Remain in all but name". But opposition to Corbyn for *whatever* reason (see below) would *still* trump any attempt to appeal to Leave voters, I think, even if Labour literally took a carbon copy of the Tory or even BXP policy on Brexit (to the extent that such a thing exists).
And the further Labour strays from the position held by most progressive voters, voters who either usually do vote Labour or might consider it - that Brexit is a fucking catastrophe and should be stopped by any means necessary that are still compatible with parliamentary democracy - the more unappealing Labour looks, and the more votes they're going to leak to the Lib Dems, Greens, anti-Brexit independents and the regional nationalist parties. Whereas progressive voters, who are overwhelmingly pro-EU or at least anti-Brexit, would flock to a Labour party that both had a strong social-democratic manifesto *and* had supported a second referendum from day 1 with a strong preference for Remain, or "Remain and reform".
To answer Rich's other questions: it's tricky, you can't get too bogged down in detail either because people simply don't follow you, or get arsey, or because it takes too long. One of the councillors I was with today did get spoken to very sharply, borderline yelled at, by a very angry pro-Brexit guy. I guess for him, Corbyn isn't Brexity enough? I dunno. One man I spoke to said he voted Remain but thinks we should leave because Leave won the vote, which seems like taking a sense of fair play to self-defeating levels. Lots of people say they want it "over with", but either don't know or choose to ignore the many years of negotiations that would follow. Some people are amenable to discussion, of course. It's always interesting though.
So, here's the $64k question: Why is Jeremy Corbyn so unpopular? I think three general possible classes of reason can be put forward:
1) The argument most commonly put forward by Corbyites is "It's the media, duh". Now I've been at some pains to point out that I'm well aware of the generally right-wing bias of most of the newspapers, as well as the BBC. They don't particularly want any Labour government and they certainly don't want one that's going to be well to the left of the last Labour government. But to follow this line of argument, if this were the sole reason for opposition to Corbyn, then it would also have turned people against the policies Labour has adopted under Corbyn. The thing is, it hasn't: a majority of people support eight out of nine of Corbyn's key policies. luka should look away now, because I'm going to use the f-word, but it's simply factually incorrect to say "People are just too right-wing to accept Corbyn's lefty policies".
Further, there's the problem of definition creep in that sketchy phrase, "the mainstream media". It's often used interchangeably with the "Tory press" or similar phrases, as if to imply that liberal and leftist news sources simply don't exist. But I've noticed it being used not only for the Tory papers and the BBC but also the Independent, Guardian/Observer and even the New Statesman - in fact any publication that features articles mentioning Labour or Corbyn that aren't by Owen Jones or Ash Sarkar. As if the Sun has anything in common with the fucking New Statesman! There's a danger in "pro-Corbyn" being adopted as the *definition* of "left-wing", so that even a progressive publication such as TNS can be dismissed as "Blairite" or "Tory" for containing any criticism of Corbyn, even if from someone with impeccable progressive credentials.
2) Then there's the possibility that some people have well-informed and well-reasoned arguments against some of Corbyn's principles that should perhaps be listened to. By far the most important of these is the ever-present accusations of antisemitism, or if you prefer (and many people put it in these terms), an excessive tolerance for antisemitism in other figures he regards as comrades, whether focusing on criticism of "bankers" (Corbyn's shorthand for everything that's wrong with capitalism), or of Israel. Now you've made your stance on this pretty clear, so all I can really do is reiterate a point I've made before, namely: if it's not OK for white people to dismiss claims of racism by black people, why is it OK for non-Jews to dismiss claims of racism made by Jews? Surely to dismiss these claims just adds to the racism? I'm not Jewish myself, nor do I have any Jewish in-laws or close friends, but it's for that exact reason that I don't feel it's my place to dismiss the problem. And yes, there are Jews who support Corbyn, and I'm not dismissing them, either. But the asymmetry in numbers is startling. There are, after all, Muslims who vote Tory and black and Hispanic Americans who love Trump.
This aspect crosses over with point 1) above because yes, there are bad-faith 'concern trolling' articles by right-wing non-Jews who don't really care about antisemitism at all but love using it as ammo. But you need to credit Jews, especially progressive Jews, with the intelligence to spot this for themselves. And with respect to your claim that the press would be just as hostile to anyone else, bear in mind that outside of the likes of InfoWars and the like, it's not common for news stories to have literally no basis in reality whatsoever. Even claims made by the Daily Mail are usually based on something that really happened, even if they give a totally one-sided account, or exaggerate part of it, or fail to give important context, or wildly extrapolate. But consider: there hasn't been a media brouhaha about Keir Starmer endorsing a racist mural, because AFAIK, no such event has ever occurred. Tom Watson has never been accused of making baseless claims about Israel, because he hasn't. So actually, yes, I think no shortage of candidates could be found to the lead the party who would, if they didn't have total immunity, at least be much less susceptible to claims of this sort.
3) Finally there's the fact that Corbyn just smells wrong, so to speak, for a lot of people. You mention his veganism and teetotalism - in a sense, you've hit the nail right on the head. There may well be something in the British psyche that is just inimical to a lifestyle and mentality that Corbyn represents - self-denying, somewhat ascetic, obviously and conventionally virtuous. His demeanour, I think, reminds a lot of people of a somewhat strict and pedantic teacher who's permanently disappointed in them. The righteousness, which obviously attracts some people, can easily look like sanctimony. Boris Johnson, with his affairs, illegitimate kids, admissions of drug use and quite possibly frequent public intoxication, couldn't be more different. People think he'd be fun to go on the razz with.
What can be done about this, I don't know. Yeah it'd be great if we all voted for policies and not personalities, but what can you do?
Anyway, we seem to have had a rapprochement of sorts, so I'll hold off from calling you a deranged cultist if you can try not to call me a troll and a moron again? ❌
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Very true. Unfortunately complaining about the issue doesn't fix it, and at worse it just sounds like whining about the constant negative press covfefe.
And there's a feedback effect, I think, whereby people get so hardened to the nonstop vituperative attacks that it makes them dismiss all criticism reflexively, which is a problem in itself when some of that criticism might be justified, or even be intended as constructive criticism from a source that's actually supportive of the party. (Imagine an article in the Guardian saying "Corbyn's press office could have handled the Skripal poisoning case better by doing X, Y and Z", but to some people this becomes an "attack" in itself and the Guardian is added to the list of hostile MSM along with the Sun etc.)
I don't have a solution to propose, of course, just making an observation.
Last edited:
IdleRich
IdleRich
Oh aye me too... and it's a famous quote about how polls don't measure what the public thinks, they measure it.
That said, is this some good news?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...ity-slashed-80-12-week/?WT.mc_id=tmg_share_fb
That said, is this some good news?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...ity-slashed-80-12-week/?WT.mc_id=tmg_share_fb
subvert47
I don't fight, I run away
No, because the line of attack is completely different.
Regarding policies the media take two approaches. The first, which is their favourite, is not to mention them at all. Keeping ideas out of the discourse altogether is always the best plan. The second, which occurs during election campaigns (when the first approach is less possible), is to rubbish them on superficial grounds, usually that they're loony left and/or can't possibly be afforded, at least not without huge tax rises which will cost you money and are anyway a very bad thing.
Regarding Corbyn, on the other hand, the attack has been very much scattergun. Attack him on anything and everything, however contradictory. "Corbyn sides with terrorists" didn't work as well as they'd hoped (though the undercurrent is certainly there), but "Corbyn is anti-semitic" picked up a lot of traction so they've kept pushing that as much as possible. But really their main aim has been to create an overall, widespread, unthinking belief that Corbyn is awful, because that's the way he's always portrayed, day in day out, in relentlessly negative coverage. The media have made it virtually an axiom that Corbyn is awful, which has seeped into every level of discourse, however trivial – especially if it's trivial. This is why most people can't answer when you ask why is he awful, because they have no particular reason, not one that can be properly explained anyway.
It's also why some people are so virilently anti-Corbyn, because they've soaked this stuff up without any self-reflection and just boost it outwards, usually as very self-righteous truth tellers. They also, without the slightest sense of irony, think that anyone who supports him must be an hysterical cultist "Corbynista". Because obviously. Corbyn is obviously awful. Anyone who thinks otherwise must be deranged. Whereas in fact it's them, the fanatical anti-Corbynites, who are deranged, shrieking swivel-eyed foot-stamping Mrs Carberrys. (And like her they're probably quite normal otherwise.)
That's not to say that there aren't grounds for criticizing Corbyn. Obviously there are. DannyL, for instance, has specific grounds. But that's not the general case. Most people reject him purely emotionally, as a result of osmosis, for no real reason at all. And despite the fact that it would, most often, be in their own interests to support both Corbyn and a Labour government.
The media have been practising this shit on Labour leaders (with the exception, for a time, of Tony Blair) for years, but with Corbyn they've unleashed everything without any restrictions at all. Hats off to them. They've been utterly relentless and their entire campaign of character assassination has been a triumph. And yet there's still a small chance Corbyn could be PM. Well, it wasn't your fault, lads, you did everything you possibly could.
Sufi: re STW, yeah, the Wikipedia page does seem to incoproate some of the criticisms I'd have. That doesn't mean the internal character of the organisation will have changed though. I wrote this on here a few months ago that sums it up for me:
I was involved in a picket outside the STW conference a few years ago, organised by Syria Solidarity. I remember talking to one guy who was super keen to denounce us as warmongers and I remember a friend asking him what his solution would be. He said "well, all sides should withdraw". Like Russia would just pull out, retire from the field like honest gentleman. I realised then that he didn't actually give a damn about Syrian lives, they didn't even factor into his thinking. It was all about enacting his post-Iraq rage at our establishment. I'm certain this guy would be known to JC and very probably on first name terms, and I'm sure the worldview would be pretty much the same.
My take on it is that these people give tacit support to Russia 'cos of their ideological campism and are thus enabling atrocities. And you really don't have to look very far to find people under the STW banner or on the anti-imperialist left reproducing Russian propaganda smearing the White Helmets, denying hospital bombing.
I should note though that the new manifesto does include some mention of condemning the bombing of hospitals which is welcome. Andrew Fisher resignation email (just before conference) mentioned the censoring of a tweet he penned condemning the bombings in Idlib as one of his reasons for quitting so I imagine this is a sop to that criticism.
This is still on C4 btw: https://www.channel4.com/programmes/for-sama/on-demand/66428-001
I was involved in a picket outside the STW conference a few years ago, organised by Syria Solidarity. I remember talking to one guy who was super keen to denounce us as warmongers and I remember a friend asking him what his solution would be. He said "well, all sides should withdraw". Like Russia would just pull out, retire from the field like honest gentleman. I realised then that he didn't actually give a damn about Syrian lives, they didn't even factor into his thinking. It was all about enacting his post-Iraq rage at our establishment. I'm certain this guy would be known to JC and very probably on first name terms, and I'm sure the worldview would be pretty much the same.
My take on it is that these people give tacit support to Russia 'cos of their ideological campism and are thus enabling atrocities. And you really don't have to look very far to find people under the STW banner or on the anti-imperialist left reproducing Russian propaganda smearing the White Helmets, denying hospital bombing.
I should note though that the new manifesto does include some mention of condemning the bombing of hospitals which is welcome. Andrew Fisher resignation email (just before conference) mentioned the censoring of a tweet he penned condemning the bombings in Idlib as one of his reasons for quitting so I imagine this is a sop to that criticism.
This is still on C4 btw: https://www.channel4.com/programmes/for-sama/on-demand/66428-001
More generally, I will say that one of the absolute best things in 2017 about Corbyn was he managed to tap into a huge constituency of people who want genuine change. Youthful optimism. I happen to think that was projected onto the wrong person/movement - it kinda reminds me of the way SWP posters turn up on every rally to try and steal it's energy - but its undeniable that that's something real. I hope that can find it's way back into the discourse. I find it hard not to support the bits of Corbyn's program that address this, the housing crisis or stopping spiralling student debt.
I'm probably more politically aware than I ever was, and I've found as I've got more informed I've drifted more to the centre left. The people writing there seem less angry, seems to have better analyses that are more rooted in history. That gives me more of critical perspective on him, his allies and where they sit in relation to the Labour movement. He is a bit of radical break from the Labour Party of Kinnock, John Smith and Harold Wilson (Kinnock fought tooth and nail to boot these people out), rather than taking the party back to it's true roots as many of his supporters would say. That's kind of where I feel I am at the moment, though hopefully that'll evolve.
This is what I mean by "sensible thinking rooted in history": https://capx.co/is-the-british-state-capable-of-labours-real-change/
This very grounded perspectives really appeal to me though i accept it lacks the sturm and drang needed to win election or leadership campaigns.
I'm probably more politically aware than I ever was, and I've found as I've got more informed I've drifted more to the centre left. The people writing there seem less angry, seems to have better analyses that are more rooted in history. That gives me more of critical perspective on him, his allies and where they sit in relation to the Labour movement. He is a bit of radical break from the Labour Party of Kinnock, John Smith and Harold Wilson (Kinnock fought tooth and nail to boot these people out), rather than taking the party back to it's true roots as many of his supporters would say. That's kind of where I feel I am at the moment, though hopefully that'll evolve.
This is what I mean by "sensible thinking rooted in history": https://capx.co/is-the-british-state-capable-of-labours-real-change/
This very grounded perspectives really appeal to me though i accept it lacks the sturm and drang needed to win election or leadership campaigns.
Last edited:
Even the antisemitism thing is kinda fascinating to me (maybe this is an unpleasant thing to say about something that's caused such really distress). It's made me go off and read people like Moishe Postone and so on. So I guess I have critiquing him to thank for some intellectual growth.