The Labour Thread

[Ebeneezer Goode]

I would happily get rid of the BBC.

 

[Pagnell]

I don't mind their existence. I simply object to the way it's funded. It can't go on forever, viewing habits are changing too much and justifiyng TV Licence fees will become increasingly difficult.

 

[mowgli]

I don't mind their existence. I simply object to the way it's funded. It can't go on forever, viewing habits are changing too much and justifiyng TV Licence fees will become increasingly difficult.

Plus the fact they rarely make decent shows anymore they just rehash old ideas, their comedy shows aren't funny and their dramas are embarrassing except for a rare few like Luther and Line Of Duty.

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

I think this little exchange might indicate that being an impartial news source is night on impossible... when they get this much of a kick back from both right and left though I'd suggest that they're perhaps not doing that bad a job?

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

I would happily get rid of the BBC.

Of course you would.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Of course you would.

Meaning?

 

[Alan Partridge]

To be fair, his hat already looked pretty fucking Russian to begin with.

 

[Pagnell]

No!!! They've infiltrated the royal family!

 

[Jockney]

I think this little exchange might indicate that being an impartial news source is night on impossible... when they get this much of a kick back from both right and left though I'd suggest that they're perhaps not doing that bad a job?

They occupy a receding ideological space — one that is wildly unpopular with most people in this country. It is in desperate need of public accountability; ideally sweeping democratisation. If people had a stake in decisions about what is newsworthy and how events are packaged and represented, the corollary would be increased political participation across the board

 

[Fompous Part]

If a bias exists it's probably an establishment bias towards the idea of a there being a pragmatic centre. Anything outside their Overton window (soft centre left to soft centre right) tends to be covered badly, and Corbyn is just one example of this. It's shite at covering 'populist' politics generally.

For me the more important question concerns the suitability and sustainability of funding a national (nay, global) media giant through a hypothecated tax first introducted in the 1940s. Back when TV sets were a luxury commodity and the Beeb enjoyed a near monopoly on UK broadcasting, it made a lot of sense. Now it doesn't.

It needs to transition to a more voluntary means of funding, methinks. No reason why it shouldn't operate like a premium cable channel or Netflix. If people think the license fee is good value, they shouldn't object to paying an equivalent (or lower) amount to voluntarily subscribe.

Won't happen, though. Governments don't want to risk the bad PR.

 

[AFCB_Mark]

Seems to be a spate of Labour staffers resigning today, for some reason.

 

[Jockney]

Seems to be a spate of Labour staffers resigning today, for some reason.

Mostly ex-Gen Sec Ian McNicol's old staff. Somehow I don't think they expect to be kept on by Formby...

 

[Laker]

Good work from Jeremy to get rid of Owen Smith today. We don’t need those sorts of traitors on the front bench.

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

Yeah, sorry, but fuck off with that. "Traitors"? That's definitely the kind of language we can do without.

Labour's positioning on Brexit is worrying imo.

They occupy a receding ideological space — one that is wildly unpopular with most people in this country. It is in desperate need of public accountability; ideally sweeping democratisation. If people had a stake in decisions about what is newsworthy and how events are packaged and represented, the corollary would be increased political participation across the board

If a bias exists it's probably an establishment bias towards the idea of a there being a pragmatic centre. Anything outside their Overton window (soft centre left to soft centre right) tends to be covered badly, and Corbyn is just one example of this. It's shite at covering 'populist' politics generally.

^These are reasonable points.

 

[Fompous Part]

The problem with using words like "traitor" or "quisling" is they promulgate (and in some cases entrench) the idea that people who oppose Brexit are ipso facto betraying the country and have no concern for its wellbeing.

Leavers don't have a monopoly on caring about the national interest. Actually, it's wrong to assume the national interest even exists in objective form, as some kind of Platonic truth discoverable through pure reason. There are competing visions of what is best for the country, and some involve Britain staying in the EU. We can disagree with them without evoking visions of Guy Burgess and William Joyce.

Uncle Jez was right to sack Smith because the idea of collective ministerial responsibility is integral to how cabinet government works in the UK; and, while the Labour party isn't currently in office, the fact that it aspires to be means it should be held to a similar standard. There can be disagreement within the wider party, but the standard expectation is that the cabinet (and shadow cabinet) should speak with one voice.

Smith stood for the Labour leadership arguing there should be a second referendum. He lost. Badly. The Labour GE2017 manifesto explicitly said it respected the referendum result. A second referendum is not Labour policy. Never has been. Smith can publicly disagree if he wishes, but basic standards of party discipline require he do so from the back benches.

 

[The Jovial Forester]

The problem with using words like "traitor" or "quisling" is they promulgate (and in some cases entrench) the idea that people who oppose Brexit are ipso facto betraying the country and have no concern for its wellbeing.

Sure Laker means traitor to the party when it comes to Smith, and the cap does fit.

 

[Fompous Part]

You may be right. I am very prone to seeing things through the cracked lens of Leave vs. Remain squabbles, so it's possible I've misconstrued. Apologies if that's the case.

It's still a bit daft, though. Unless there's evidence that Smith has colluded with opposition parties with the intent of hurting his own, it seems excessive to bring the language of betrayal into it. It's dissent, not treachery.

 

[The Jovial Forester]

Think it's more a coordinated campaign with the same busted bunch who backed his leadership campaign; if he's in the shadow cabinet he has signed up to a collective responsibility, if he wants to exercise his principles he resigns and does it from the back bench, he's asked Corbyn to sack him effectively so they can moan about the Islington Stalinist.

 

[Laker]

I actually posted it totally tongue in cheek with the attempt of getting a chomp, and the only serious points of the “event” in my mind is that while we are frequently reminded of divisions over Brexit in the Tories, there is still some division between those in the Labour Party which they’d wish we’d all forget about. And the other point which makes me chuckle somewhat is that a lot (not all, I would add) of the online pro-Corbyn support comes from people horrified by the referendum result. There’s a definite conflict in many labour supporters’ minds.

I probably deserved the “fuck off” to be fair - it’s what happens when you don’t stick a cheeky smiley after your cheeky post.

 

[The Jovial Forester]

That's my career as a political pundit fucked then

 

[Laker]

That's my career as a political pundit fucked then

Haha. To be fair I don’t post “chomp” type posts often.

Corbyn had to sack Smith from the front line, I actually thought Labour’s leader handled it pretty well.

 

[mowgli]

Corbyn had to sack Smith from the front line

Yet he didn't sack "Abacus" Abbott for saying exactly the same thing last year.

 

[Fompous Part]

In a letter to a constituent (details here in the Grauniad) she wrote that she would, "argue for the right of the electorate to vote on any deal that is finally agreed."

Most people, not unreasonably, interpreted "electorate to vote" as meaning "referendum" and wondered aloud whether this cohered with Labour policy. When questioned on the matter, however, she 'clarified' that she actually meant a parliamentary vote. See this interview with Gollum for an example.

All a bit dubious to my mind, but I think it's fair to say she at least fudged her way back to a position of toeing the party line, which means we're not really comparing like with like here.

 

[Red]

To be fair, his hat already looked pretty fucking Russian to begin with.

I'm not buying a Mini Metro.

 

[Abertawe]

Yet he didn't sack "Abacus" Abbott for saying exactly the same thing last year.

black woman with a better life than me - must attempt to degrade her. consistently the same lines from you

 

[Abertawe]

comrade https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/media/2018/04/nick-griffin-declares-his-support-jeremy-corbyn

 

[Red]

Who'd have thunk it?

 

[AFCB_Mark]

comrade https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/media/2018/04/nick-griffin-declares-his-support-jeremy-corbyn

Who'd have thunk it?

Meanwhile Gordon Brown is making speeches about stronger immigration controls, further "registration of migrants entering the country", "removal of migrants if they failed to find a job within nine months", more restrictions on what jobs can be advertised abroad.

Going around the twist.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Councillor who said Isis does not exist is given antiterror role

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Naz Shah appointed Labour’s new shadow equalities minster. Yikes.