4 ms·

>tiny segment of the population with outlier views I knew a comment like this was coming. This was essentially the story that the insiders played non-stop fro

>tiny segment of the population with outlier views I knew a comment like this was coming. This was essentially the story that the insiders played non-stop from the moment he was elected leader. He was going to destroy the party. He has views that are "so far left" that was they are crazy and would render the Labour party unelectable for a generation because that's not what the public would ever vote for. The media dutifully followed this line, and at one point every single major media outlet in the UK - including the BBC and the Guardian and "traditionally" left wing (although billionaire owned) media like the Independent attacking him nearly non-stop. The most common complaint I got about him at the time wasn't that people disagreed with his policies (his policies were rarely talked about in the media until the election manifesto was leaked), but that they read that he was unelectable so they believed he was unelectable. At that point he was polling very low because of this. Then Theresa May called an election and completely pulled the rug from underneath this illusion. Labour insiders rallied behind him out of fear for their jobs and the media followed suit. His polling climbed so quickly it gave Theresa May whiplash, causing a hung parliament in the end. So much for destroying the Labour party and so much for unelectable. That's the point it became clear to everybody that it was much, much more than just a tiny segment of the population that shared his views. And, today, they poll much better than the ruling party. Nothing says "tiny segment of the population" like that, right? What this all demonstrates is the sheer power of propaganda to shape people's perceptions - yours included - because your line was the most common talking point, right up until it was proven so utterly, completely wrong that even Alastair Campbell - the consummate Blairite Labour party insider - was forced to grovel for being so wrong. Incidentally, this whole process was mirrored in America with Bernie Sanders. The only difference is he never got to prove that he was electable.

peoplewindow 9y ago
I would note that whilst Corbyn does have a few policies that are popular, he still lost despite facing perhaps the weakest Tory candidate in a very long time. Theresa May: "the naughtiest thing I've ever done was skipping through a field of wheat" wat? The objections to him aren't usually about the specific policies raised in the last manifesto (which I disagree with but reasonable people can differ on things like railway nationalisation). They're more that people don't trust his government would actually stick to the manifesto. The habit he has of surrounding himself with liars who try to hide their extremist views - and yes, in the UK thinking Marxism is great is an extremist view - engender a deep suspicion that if he won on a moderately left wing platform he'd immediately go off the deep end. today, they poll much better than the ruling party The latest polls don't show Labour polling better at all, although this many years into an administration the opposition would normally be polling much better. Actually the Tories are slightly ahead at the moment: http://britainelects.com/polling/westminster/ http://britainelects.com/polling/westminster/ Of course the polls will drift around all over the place between elections. That doesn't mean much about what would happen if there was another snap election. What this all demonstrates is the sheer power of propaganda to shape people's perceptions - yours included Given that you just made a claim that's provably false, I'd be careful about tossing around accusations that those you disagree with are all brainwashed, although I realise this is a very common belief amongst Corbynites.
- crdoconnor 9y ago
  >he still lost despite facing perhaps the weakest Tory candidate in a very long time. Or, to look at it another way, he triggered a hung parliament in spite of: * 60% of the PLP openly and covertly sabotaging him. * The entire mainstream print and broadcast media attacking him relentlessly ("left wing" Independent and Guardian included) until the day the election was called. >Given that you just made a claim that's provably false I was talking specifically about the claim made in 2015 that Corbyn was "unelectable" and would "render the Labour party unelectable for a generation" by members of the media and Blairite members of his own party. They were arguing that the UK was going to become essentially a one party state with Labour polling similarly to the Lib Dems in all of the following elections for a generation (~25 years). What followed was the largest vote gain in history by any UK party since 1945. That is not provably false, it is provably true. >I'd be careful about tossing around accusations that those you disagree with are all brainwashed I'm not arguing that people who disagree with me are all brainwashed. I'm arguing that people who agreed with that specific idea were brainwashed. What else do you call people who buy into ideas promoted heavily in the media that are so divergent from reality?

peoplewindow 9y ago

I would note that whilst Corbyn does have a few policies that are popular, he still lost despite facing perhaps the weakest Tory candidate in a very long time. Theresa May: "the naughtiest thing I've ever done was skipping through a field of wheat" wat? The objections to him aren't usually about the specific policies raised in the last manifesto (which I disagree with but reasonable people can differ on things like railway nationalisation). They're more that people don't trust his government would actually stick to the manifesto. The habit he has of surrounding himself with liars who try to hide their extremist views - and yes, in the UK thinking Marxism is great is an extremist view - engender a deep suspicion that if he won on a moderately left wing platform he'd immediately go off the deep end. today, they poll much better than the ruling party The latest polls don't show Labour polling better at all, although this many years into an administration the opposition would normally be polling much better. Actually the Tories are slightly ahead at the moment: http://britainelects.com/polling/westminster/ http://britainelects.com/polling/westminster/ Of course the polls will drift around all over the place between elections. That doesn't mean much about what would happen if there was another snap election. What this all demonstrates is the sheer power of propaganda to shape people's perceptions - yours included Given that you just made a claim that's provably false, I'd be careful about tossing around accusations that those you disagree with are all brainwashed, although I realise this is a very common belief amongst Corbynites.

crdoconnor 9y ago
>he still lost despite facing perhaps the weakest Tory candidate in a very long time. Or, to look at it another way, he triggered a hung parliament in spite of: * 60% of the PLP openly and covertly sabotaging him. * The entire mainstream print and broadcast media attacking him relentlessly ("left wing" Independent and Guardian included) until the day the election was called. >Given that you just made a claim that's provably false I was talking specifically about the claim made in 2015 that Corbyn was "unelectable" and would "render the Labour party unelectable for a generation" by members of the media and Blairite members of his own party. They were arguing that the UK was going to become essentially a one party state with Labour polling similarly to the Lib Dems in all of the following elections for a generation (~25 years). What followed was the largest vote gain in history by any UK party since 1945. That is not provably false, it is provably true. >I'd be careful about tossing around accusations that those you disagree with are all brainwashed I'm not arguing that people who disagree with me are all brainwashed. I'm arguing that people who agreed with that specific idea were brainwashed. What else do you call people who buy into ideas promoted heavily in the media that are so divergent from reality?