|
U-Know! Forum » Jeremy Corbyn |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Edited Sep 09, 2015, 12:41
Sep 09, 2015, 12:39
|
||
|
Ah well, we'll obviously make no headway here. You asked for "evidence". I posted links to evidence. Then you complain about me posting too many links. Do you want the evidence or not? If you don't, then why challenge me to produce it? If you do, then how do you propose I provide it if I can't post links? You claimed that a search for "people put off labour by fear of SNP" leads to lots of "evidence". Except I can't see it. You don't post a single link to one of them, let alone the numerous you say exist. I see plenty of news articles published prior to the election, but none published afterwards that analyse the actual vote (as opposed to the pre-election polls) and conclude that the SNP had a measurable impact on the English vote. You say that history is littered with PR campaigns that worked, as well as ones that didn't. Of course it is. Are you really suggesting I was denying that obvious fact? I was pointing out there is no way of knowing whether a campaign was successful until evidence is presented afterwards. That hasn't been done in this case; so the mere fact of the campaign's existence cannot be used to demonstrate the SNP's influence. I wasn't "conflating" your posts with anyone's. I was trying to discuss an issue... not individual opinions. The initial claim (made by someone else) was that the SNP (or fear of them) had sufficient influence on the English vote that it "allowed the tories in". I pointed out that in order for that to be true; it would mean that the popularity of the SNP played a part in shifting the vote in Tory/Labour marginals. There is no evidence that happened. You quote me as saying: "There is absolutely no evidence that the people of Bolton West shift their political allegiance based upon the perceived popularity of the SNP." I'm not saying you can't find one or two individuals in Bolton who allowed the SNP to influence them. But that obviously is not what someone means when they talk about "the people" of a constituency shifting political allegiance. In the context of an election analysis, it means a collective shift that affects the result. Is it really necessary to spell that out? As for the analogy with the UKIP's anti-immigration campaign? I genuinely thought that was self-evident. I'll try to explain it better if it doesn't make sense to you... The tory PR campaign tried to scare English voters by pointing out the increasing strength of the SNP north of the border. "A vote for Labour might allow the SNP to have some power as a junior coalition partner in Westminster, and that would be terrible" - they said* UKIP tried to scare voters by claiming that increasing numbers of immigrants are heading to the UK (and Europe) - and that would be terrible. In both cases; the core fact was true... the SNP were strong in Scotland; and there are more immigrants heading for the UK. However, whatever divisions are being created by those PR campaigns are being created by the people running the campaigns... not the people they are about. That was the point of the analogy and I don't think I can explain it any better than that. As I say though; this is likely going nowhere. You openly challenged me to produce "evidence" (of a negative remember!) and then complained that I was "posting a welterweight of website links". And let's be clear, I wasn't just "link spamming". I presented a position along with the links that backed it up. If that isn't what you asked of me, then I guess we really don't understand one another. I'm sorry about that. ---------------- * The actual campaign was hypocritical nonsense on so many levels; but that's a trait shared with much political propaganda... on all sides.
|
|||
stray 2057 posts |
Edited Sep 09, 2015, 14:53
Sep 09, 2015, 14:30
|
||
|
Taylor Parkes on Corbyn. http://thequietus.com/articles/18714-jeremy-corbyn-labour-election-rally-policies Reminded me of what I know and have been ignoring, of everything that has gone wrong and is beyond the pale with this countries revolutionary left. Ridiculous and indefensible stances resulting from following basic Marxist and Trotskyist dictats to their largely illogical conclusions. That and there are still too many on the Left who get a hard on when they see someone in a Keffiyeh carrying an AK47, irrespective of the politics of whoever is holding the rifle. I had many, many Kronstadt moments in the 90's (one every other week when I was a 'proper' activist). Good article.. on the whole... I'm still a lot more optomistic about the effect a Corbyn leadership will have on the wider political scene in this country.. To go back to some oldschool slogans of the left in the UK, 'Vote, but under no illusions' and 'unconditional but critical support'.
|
|||
Locodogz 254 posts |
Sep 09, 2015, 20:22
|
||
|
Sigh... sadly I think you're right - we're unlikely to find common ground as we seemingly just don't understand each other. All I'm saying is the Tories won an outright majority that surprised many people. A core message that they invested millions into was 'Vote Tory, get SNP'. I'm of the view that this was one (albeit) of many factors that lead to fewer people than many expected voting for Labour Interesting quote from one of your links supposedly disproving this "...a huge problem for Labour when it became clear that in order to govern, it would have to rely on parliamentary support from a resurgent Scottish National Party, predicted to win almost all the constituencies north of the border. Labour suffered from too much uncertainty about its program, and its leader’s credibility, to withstand fears among English voters of Scottish nationalist influence." I agree with the author Mandelson that the spectre of Salmond holding sway in a coalition hit the Labour vote - you say it had no impact - you helpfully post another link in which Milliband's 'advisors' are of the view that the SNP spectre was a factor - you say it had no impact. Then a few more links (one so good that you linked it twice!) which put forward other theories and reasons for the defeat (for the avoidance of doubt I know of no one saying the SNP factor was the sole reason) most of which I'd concur with as factors (indeed probably bigger factors) Grufty you're clearly a bright chap but your seemingly pathological refusal to acknowledge viewpoints put forward in two of the links that YOU chose to post does you scant credit Anyway that's me done, I really had no intention to get drawn into an exchange of this sort when I posted initially. Quite happy to leave the last word/s to you!
|
|||
|
Locodogz 254 posts |
Sep 10, 2015, 12:18
|
||
|
And another thing...! Yes, back again. I'm genuinely sorry if it looks like I'm unfairly jumping on your post. That's not my intention. But there was something about your UKIP analogy that was bugging me In your second 'explained for thickies' version you state "The tory PR campaign tried to scare English voters by pointing out the increasing strength of the SNP north of the border. "A vote for Labour might allow the SNP to have some power as a junior coalition partner in Westminster, and that would be terrible" - they said* UKIP tried to scare voters by claiming that increasing numbers of immigrants are heading to the UK (and Europe) - and that would be terrible. In both cases; the core fact was true... the SNP were strong in Scotland; and there are more immigrants heading for the UK. However, whatever divisions are being created by those PR campaigns are being created by the people running the campaigns... not the people they are about." Thats rather like saying "people didn't leave town because a hurricane was coming, they left because the weather forecast told them a hurricane was coming" Namely the end result, exodus of people, had nothing to do with the hurricane, just down to the people delivering the message. Except in the case of the SNP people could see on a daily basis the strength of their polling, as opposed to an as yet unseen storm over the horizon. But hey, if thats what you believe.....
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Edited Sep 10, 2015, 13:23
Sep 10, 2015, 13:22
|
||
|
Locodogz wrote: Thats rather like saying "people didn't leave town because a hurricane was coming, they left because the weather forecast told them a hurricane was coming" Namely the end result, exodus of people, had nothing to do with the hurricane, just down to the people delivering the message. Except in the case of the SNP people could see on a daily basis the strength of their polling, as opposed to an as yet unseen storm over the horizon. But hey, if thats what you believe..... Yes, it is what I believe. I believe there is a fundamental difference in the category of information imparted by (a) political propaganda; and (b) the weather forecast. I don't feel they can be usefully compared in the way you have done, and are certainly not analogous in the way two political campaigns might be. Oddly enough though, I'm working on a paper right now that uses the distinction between a literal Vs metaphorical storm to illustrate the core rift between history and mythology. The failure / inability to make that distinction lies at the root of much religious (and other forms of) fundamentalism. I'm not for a moment suggesting you're a religious fundamentalist. This category error can be found all over the place. We are all guilty of it to a greater or lesser degree in different ways. And in this case, it's standing between us and any chance of agreement. Anyway; to paraphrase you back at yourself; do feel free to have the last word(s) on this. I think my race is run on the U-Know! Forum. I'm not walking off in a huff or anything - and it wasn't solely to do with this thread, Locodogz, which has been more civil than most of late. I quit facebook and twitter several months ago; and I'm just finding social media a tad alienating. The modern world is already alienating enough without it! These days it's very rare for me to read anything on this forum I actually agree with. And my own posts generate far more negative responses than positive or neutral. That's not a demand for others to change their views; it's an acknowledgement I'm probably in the wrong place. Take care all.
|
|||
|
Rhiannon 5291 posts |
Sep 10, 2015, 15:22
|
||
|
do you know, I never got my bloody ballot despite chivvying them and getting a patronising email about checking my junk email folder. I am not impressed.
|
|||
|
Locodogz 254 posts |
Sep 10, 2015, 15:30
|
||
|
Grufty In all seriousness the last thing I'd want is to feel that I'm in any part a catalyst in you leaving these parts. I'm no troll (or fundamentalist!!!) - indeed in the real world have had a few pint with many denizens of these parts - Vybik. Moon Cat, KC to name but a few. I think you're underestimating how much of what you post goes by with silent assent and - lets be honest - we're having somewhat trivial spat about who's to blame - the message or the message(er) - sic. As a classicist (Kings, London) I've love to see your views on mythology vs history Sincerely hope this isn't the last word on the subject PS I too put (a little) more credence in the information in a weather forecast as opposed to any political message, the point I was (clumsily) trying to make was on people acting on the message content vs the messenger Anyways all the best come what may
|
|||
Sin Agog 2253 posts |
Sep 12, 2015, 10:19
|
||
A little over an hour now.
|
|||
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Sep 12, 2015, 10:24
|
||
|
Sin Agog wrote: A little over an hour now. Yes and when he gets in they will all be swearing their allegiance to him after stabbing him in the back for the past two months or so!!
|
|||
|
Sin Agog 2253 posts |
Sep 12, 2015, 11:37
|
||
Well he seems to have survived the first seven minutes of being Labour leader. Seven minutes and thirty seconds now. He's getting good at this staying alive lark.
|
| Pages: 23 – [ Previous | 1 … 18 19 20 21 22 23 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
