Poll : Next Labour Leader.

[Bob McC]

Get out a bit more and you’ll find there are plenty of wealthy middle class liberal remainder enclaves oop in’t north as well.

 

[tonerei]

Get out a bit more and you’ll find there are plenty of wealthy middle class liberal remainder enclaves oop in’t north as well.

Yes I remember a visit to Harrogate. Was shocked at the prices for coffees/scones. Similar price to a top class Dublin hotel. There are always wealthy enclaves but my overriding view driving from Manchester airport to edge of the Yorkshire dales was a lot of desolation. Saw a Leeds v Blackburn game in Blackburn. Scary place I couldn't figure out how they won the title even with Jack Walker as benefactor.

 

[Woodface]

Yes it did ( have something to do with Labour. )

they were in power..they pursued some reckless financial policy's ( not forgetting PFI ) and it is documented that Darling failed to act quickly enough nor decisively enough when it could have made some difference to the UK's exposure to the crisis.

It's not an obsession with the failures but the failure to learn from the failures that is the problem.

Where do you think the publics lack of faith in Corbyns projected spending plans comes from ?

The lack of confidence comes from Corbyn being crap & the constant denigration fo the last Labour Govt, why would you vote for a party that attacks its own record in power?

Blair won 3 elections, Corbyn lost two but its obviously its all Blairs fault. How doe this logic work?

 

[Woodface]

This ignores the website impressions though, doesn't it?

Not really as paid for content is more valuable. Whichever way you cut it the press has less power

 

[gassor]

In spite of all this Labour would still have won if it wasn't all down to Brexit! Just look at how many votes the brexit party got! Although they thankfully failed to win any seats, a typical Tory win in a previously "Labour for ever area" was on the lines of:

Conservative- 20,000
Labour- 17,000
Brexit Party- 12,000
Lib Dems- 2000

If for now we ignore the logical paradox that if it wasn't for Brexit there would have been no Brexit Party... I think we can be reasonably sure that in places like Blythe Valley 80%+ of those Brexit Party votes would have gone to Labour and the Tories would have had maybe 30% less votes. It would have been a landslide for Labour as usual in Blythe Valley in spite of Corbyn! The "red wall" would be extant and Labour would likely have had a majority of say 20-30...
BloJo is also very unpopular and untrusted!

The Brexit Party are a single issue protest party at the end of the day... with no real policies, no MP's, no experience of governing! In spite of this they came second or third in many seats! This is proof that the turkeys were so eager to vote for xmas that they'd have voted for Santa himself if it brought them any closer to being an "oven ready Brexit" turkey!

With 20:20 hindsight it seems the idiot turkey vote had consolidated, there was no way Brexit was going to be stopped and maybe the least bad option was that Labour should have been staunchly pro Leave! The degree of devastation could have been limited by a soft Labour BRINO and we'd have a socialist gov in power! But that's hindsight for yer... In reality I think most here, myself included, would have said Corbyn should have got off the fence and been The Remain Candidate... but it seems that wouldn't have worked out well at all!

Which brings me back to the MSM! People who were kinda "EU? Haven't thought about it that much but I suppose I'll vote leave yeah" were turned into frothing at the mouth rabid Brexiteers by the Tory press and all the "Traitors!" and "Enemies of the people!" and "We'll fight for OUR Brexit together!" headlines. They tried to make it a conspiracy to "steal" "their Brexit", kept telling people that they (the papers) were their voice, the voice of the people, they were in it together and the papers would "speak truth to power" on their behalf.... If Corbyn got it in the eye off the papers then the concept of remaining, and anyone seen as being behind it, got it twice as bad!

I don't know how you can argue that Labour could have won if there was no Brexit and in the next breath say there was no way Brexit was going to be stopped. There had been a groundswell of disenchantment with the EU for a long time and it seems inevitable that it would have become a major issue at some point. Corbyn himself played a part in enabling Brexit to become a big deal by the way he refused to endorse the UK being in the EU and also refusing to campaign for Remain before the referendum. Corbyn's popularity ratings were the lowest for any leader of a political party in the UK.

If you are saying that the people who voted for Brexit were idiots then the man who condoned this vote by refusing to oppose it must also be an idiot. Brexit has been mishandled and the anti-semitism row has been mishandled. People are not stupid at all, they saw how Labour was handling things and they didn't like it. Face facts, Corbyn has been a disaster for Labour and the election results make this clear.

 

[Woodface]

From the evidence it seems clear it isn't that simple.

Firstly, the printed press continues for millions of people to set a large part of the 'mental agenda' of what 'everyone knows'. That targets a given demographic. This goes on day after day week after week and the Tories don't need to pay for it or organise it.

Secondly, we can now add 'social media' etc, where both the Tories and others who flock with them spend *millions* sending a flood of targetted material which can largely escape critical scutiny. The flood mean many more items of propaganda get out before you can respond to the previous ones. This goes for the demographics that don't read the 'Daily Bile'.

That doesn't reach everyone. But it does reach millions of people. So has an effect on people who already have seen that their lives have got crappier for decades.

So *any* big change can be hyped as something to go for, as maybe it will help.

Plus, if nothing else it might piss in the beer of someone who has been making profit from their misery. All you have to do there is hide the real exploiters from view and let the people who aren't like the ones who feel oppressed become the obvious targets.

You don't have to get everyone into that state. Just enough for the Tories and their backers to get their way.

I am not sure I understand what you are saying. The press has less power, it has a far smaller commercial market share, these are basic facts.

Labour can just as easily use social media as the tories, it's larger membership probably gives it an advantage.

This is all irrelevant if they keep electing crap leaders.

 

[Woodface]

How many read the 'papers' on line, etc?

How often are those papers used a clubs used by TV/radio reporters to have a go at a Labour politician.

How often are the journalists who write for those papers on TV/radio putting the same views? (Chosen *because* they write in a 'national newspaper' which is really a vanity publication in direct financial terms.)

How often are the items appearing on the newspaper website linked to, referenced, tweeted about, etc, by others?

etc.

Don't assume the raw conventional circulation figures tell you all you need to know anout the influence gained.

Most of the above is an emotional response.

Amplification of press readership by social media is actually quite difficult to quantify but fragmentation across all media channels ultimately lessens the power of each channel.

Elect a better leader & you are half way there. Labour has always had to swim against the tide, this is nothing new.

Press has less power, TV is more fragmented & social media is getting a bit of everyone's lunch. This is the new reality, you cannot turn the clock back. Labour could buy all the press titles in the country (if it had unlimited money) & it would make no difference.

 

[Seeker_UK]

Labour can just as easily use social media as the tories, it's larger membership probably gives it an advantage.

ISTR that Labour and its supporters did very well with social media in the 2017 GE.

Once the Tories got serious about social media and called in the professionals for 2019, Labour should have done the same and not relied on the enthusiastic amateurs of 2015 and 2017. Like with many other things, Labour thought that the excellence of the policies and the charisma of their leader nullified the need for anything else. It would appear that the period of reflection is not thinking about the 'games' they have to play to win the next election.

 

[ks.234]

ISTR that Labour and its supporters did very well with social media in the 2017 GE.

Once the Tories got serious about social media and called in the professionals for 2019, Labour should have done the same and not relied on the enthusiastic amateurs of 2015 and 2017. Like with many other things, Labour thought that the excellence of the policies and the charisma of their leader nullified the need for anything else. It would appear that the period of reflection is not thinking about the 'games' they have to play to win the next election.

It wasn’t the social media expertise that Labour lacked, it was the willingness to use social media to tell lies in a coordinated and systematic manner that also feed into a willing MSM

 

[Joe]

It wasn’t the social media expertise that Labour lacked, it was an electable leader.

Fixed.

A sincere merry Christmas to you and I hope ,for all of us, next year ( and the coming years ) are not as politically apocalyptically awful as you imagine. We really need to move on from this narrow political debate and focus on climate change or we will not be here for any of this politicking to matter in the long run.

It's musical chairs and the music has stopped.

 

[ks.234]

Odd that you alter my post in order to score a narrow political point, then call for us to move on from this narrow political point scoring

Anyway, for a week now I’ve been calling for a good hard look at a longer historical understanding and a wider social and political perspective to Labour’s recent disaster, precisely to avoid narrow political assumptions and build more solid foundations on which to base the future of the Labour Party.

I totally agree about climate change, and a strong commitment to climate change was of course a significant part of the Labour Manifesto which, along side anti austerity measures and an equally strong commitment to public services, need to be kept for any meaningful future of a socially strong Labour Party.

Personally I’d like to see an alliance between Labour and the Greens, a Starmer/Lucas joint ticket might be a more solid buffer against media attacks as well as provide a very articulate, and, in Lucas at least, more attractive face for the media

A merry Christmas to you too and to everyone else on pfm.

 

[Woodface]

ISTR that Labour and its supporters did very well with social media in the 2017 GE.

Once the Tories got serious about social media and called in the professionals for 2019, Labour should have done the same and not relied on the enthusiastic amateurs of 2015 and 2017. Like with many other things, Labour thought that the excellence of the policies and the charisma of their leader nullified the need for anything else. It would appear that the period of reflection is not thinking about the 'games' they have to play to win the next election.

Yes, absolutely correct. If Labour had a coherant digital strategy to start with their membership would have been able to amplify it more effectively. The caveat to this is that party members are not always an asset, think about how we Labour supporters view Tory members & imagine how some of our members can look from the outside.

Sir K is the best hope Labour have at present but I doubt we will see just the one leader in the next 5 years.

 

[deanf]

It wasn’t just Corbyn and Brexit, when you talk to people it went a lot deeper. Go back as far back as the party having no succession planning after Blair and take it from there, but don’t miss any of the dozen other reasons.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

The key phrase in that paragraph is ‘got elected’.

Indeed. The snag being that it is worse than pointless to be elected on the basis of then being just the same as the Tories. That just sets you up to be discarded again having shown you can do no better.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

Most of the above is an emotional response.

Amplification of press readership by social media is actually quite difficult to quantify but fragmentation across all media channels ultimately lessens the power of each channel.

Elect a better leader & you are half way there. Labour has always had to swim against the tide, this is nothing new.

Press has less power, TV is more fragmented & social media is getting a bit of everyone's lunch. This is the new reality, you cannot turn the clock back. Labour could buy all the press titles in the country (if it had unlimited money) & it would make no difference.

Actually, it was a series of questions. And it is clear that you don't know the answers to them, either.

But they do make plain that simply trying to tot up 'number of papers sold' fails to cover the level of influence and effect their content has, particularly when we add in the multiplier effects of the net media in modern times.

Easy to say "Elect a better leader". But back in mere reality, conveying 'better' to people then depends on what goes though the media. Ask yourself "What happened to Leveson 2?"

A big part of the "new reality" in media is the *millions of pounds* being spent on propagandising in targetted ways, behind the backs of those who might call out the content being spread. Often 'corroborated' by ye olde newspapers, day after day, via some of the means I questioned and where we can't actually quantify the effects because it is done in a way hidden from scrutiny.

If you can find reliable values that answer the questions I posed, please let us know so we can examine them and their sources/reliabilty.

 

[35451]

Indeed. The snag being that it is worse than pointless to be elected on the basis of then being just the same as the Tories. That just sets you up to be discarded again having shown you can do no better.

Maybe it's quite smart for a new John Smith type to get elected, saying all the crap that people want to hear, then proceed to promptly ignore th election pledges, and go on to do exactly what they wanted all along, Whilst using social media crap polls and stats, etc to drip to the masses "we are doing a great job for you." Many will believe this.

Say what you want to get the job, then do what you want for 5 years.

Oh, and (lesson from Tories), never, ever mention the term austerity, even if that's what you are going to do. Or massive wild spending, if that's your intention.

If enough don't notice, you'll then get a second term.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

Maybe it's quite smart for a new John Smith type to get elected, saying all the crap that people want to hear, then proceed to promptly ignore th election pledges, and go on to do exactly what they wanted all along, Whilst using social media crap polls and stats, etc to drip to the masses "we are doing a great job for you." Many will believe this.

Say what you want to get the job, then do what you want for 5 years.
.

Back in ancient times I did have a hope that's what B. Liar would actually do. But, nope.

However BloJo will probably now do whatever his version of the 'prince of darkness' decides.

 

[Tony L]

Indeed. The snag being that it is worse than pointless to be elected on the basis of then being just the same as the Tories. That just sets you up to be discarded again having shown you can do no better.

FWIW I twigged that UK politics was a total farce pretty much as soon as I was old enough to vote and realised my vote just wouldn’t get counted towards representation in the Tory seat (thankfully now Labour) where I grew up. Since that point I’ve either voted for PR or on occasion tactically against Tories if I was in a marginal (I have moved around the country a lot).

Really nothing can change until we have a functional democracy, so everyone’s first vote should be to change the system, then after that they can actually vote for what they believe in. It is safe to assume that the Tories will never replace a corrupt system they have rigged so effectively, though I suspect Labour may well start to rethink their support for this failed system now it no longer works for them. It wouldn’t surprise me to see PR creeping into a future Labour manifesto. If so I suspect quite a lot of folk from other progressives such as myself will lend them a vote just for that election to implement it. Regardless UK politics is just hopeless unless we can eventually move towards becoming a democracy. That has to be the first step.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

I confess I'm ambivalent about PR. The problem is that it doesn't really solve the problem, just shuffles it about a bit. i.e. it still throws up cases where it can be argued that someone else should have 'won' or seem 'unfair'. Also the question of which system? I recall a PR election we had locally many years ago (For community council IIRC) where no-one could explain how the computer program used to apply it actually worked!

So beware Tories offering you a PR-system-in-a-box! 8-]

 

[Woodface]

Actually, it was a series of questions. And it is clear that you don't know the answers to them, either.

But they do make plain that simply trying to tot up 'number of papers sold' fails to cover the level of influence and effect their content has, particularly when we add in the multiplier effects of the net media in modern times.

Easy to say "Elect a better leader". But back in mere reality, conveying 'better' to people then depends on what goes though the media. Ask yourself "What happened to Leveson 2?"

A big part of the "new reality" in media is the *millions of pounds* being spent on propagandising in targetted ways, behind the backs of those who might call out the content being spread. Often 'corroborated' by ye olde newspapers, day after day, via some of the means I questioned and where we can't actually quantify the effects because it is done in a way hidden from scrutiny.

If you can find reliable values that answer the questions I posed, please let us know so we can examine them and their sources/reliabilty.

There are number of disputed ways of measuring amplification, many 'impressions' can be falsified by the use of bots. Newspaper often exaggerate their social media presence as a way of justifying rates.

If you want to understand the differing ways things are measured then their are a number of sources for oine you can have a read here https://www.iabuk.com/. Newspaper circulations are usually bumped up to a greater or lesser degree by 'bulks' so the picture is very mixed. The number of newspapers actually bought by a person who invests in its content is significantly less than the overall circulation figure quoted.

So called 'traditional media' is in decline & LP would do well to subvent its 'power' which is easier than it used to be. I cannot foresee a time where newspapers will grow, this is the new reality.

Apologies if my initial reply was a bit blunt, I had been out for several drinks, no offence was intended.