This Once Great Movement Of Ours

[cp]

People have been doing the same ad nauseam with Boris Johnson and he isn't as universally reviled as Corbyn. I think it's because has some redeeming features - humourous, intelligent, annoys the right people - which Corbyn didn't have.

Yeah, you're kind of proving my point. The chorus about Johnson has always included those 'redeeming features' - again, irrespective of whether or not they are 'true' - and for that reason he has prospered well beyond what his many shortcomings would have foretold. By contrast, it's not that Corbyn lacked 'redeeming' features. In private, journalists and voters alike invariably commented on how mild-mannered, charming, and empathetic he came off. It's that those aspects of his personality were never accentuated, nevermind repeated ad nauseum, by the people/institutions necessary to effect a public image that was more redeemable.

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

People have been doing the same ad nauseam with Boris Johnson and he isn't as universally reviled as Corbyn. I think it's because has some redeeming features - humourous, intelligent, annoys the right people - which Corbyn didn't have.

I mean Corbyn always seemed empathetic and caring even the polls showed that his ratings on that metric were higher than Boris's. A lot of people forget his empathetic response to Grenfell Tower fire compared to May's percived robotic response was the moment momentum in the 2017 campagin shifted.

[Geoffrey Howe]

People have been doing the same ad nauseam with Boris Johnson and he isn't as universally reviled as Corbyn. I think it's because has some redeeming features - humourous, intelligent, annoys the right people - which Corbyn didn't have.

Yeah, you're kind of proving my point. The chorus about Johnson has always included those 'redeeming features' - again, irrespective of whether or not they are 'true' - and for that reason he has prospered well beyond what his many shortcomings would have foretold. By contrast, it's not that Corbyn lacked 'redeeming' features. In private, journalists and voters alike invariably commented on how mild-mannered, charming, and empathetic he came off. It's that those aspects of his personality were never accentuated, nevermind repeated ad nauseum, by the people/institutions necessary to effect a public image that was more redeemable.

I sort of agree. For one thing, though, those attacks wouldn't have struck a chord if they didn't have some basis in reality - Corbyn, to many, was a revulsive character regardless of what the Daily Mail said. I do think that most people who like Boris are aware of his flaws but don't particularly care about them - who cares if he lies a bit, disrupts norms, isn't very competent: he's a politician and people have come to expect this (obviously I disagree). People did go on about how nice "Jeremy" was; this grandfatherly figure, but his perceived flaws where ones which the general public strongly disliked (seen as anti-Britain for example), whereas Boris' flaws people have stopped caring about; indeed managing to annoy the "pundits" and the Guardian is a strength.

[Pericles]

People have been doing the same ad nauseam with Boris Johnson and he isn't as universally reviled as Corbyn. I think it's because has some redeeming features - humourous, intelligent, annoys the right people - which Corbyn didn't have.

I mean Corbyn always seemed empathetic and caring even the polls showed that his ratings on that metric were higher than Boris's. A lot of people forget his empathetic response to Grenfell Tower fire compared to May's percived robotic response was the moment momentum in the 2017 campagin shifted.

Unfortunately the 2017 election had already happened by that point, otherwise perhaps the outcome would have been different and the country better off, but we'll never know.

[Blair]

The thing about Boris is that there certainly is a type of normally conservative voter who does not like him, or his brand of Conservatism (a change that started with May)

There are wards (especially in parts of West London but also I imagine in similar seats) that return conservative councillors but have seen swings to Labour which are close to the scale of the swings seen in some Labour-Tory 2019 seats. It's just these voters are a much smaller chunk of the electorate, tend to be extremely politically engaged (even smaller chunk) and they're not that geographically spread out.

[cp]

People have been doing the same ad nauseam with Boris Johnson and he isn't as universally reviled as Corbyn. I think it's because has some redeeming features - humourous, intelligent, annoys the right people - which Corbyn didn't have.

Yeah, you're kind of proving my point. The chorus about Johnson has always included those 'redeeming features' - again, irrespective of whether or not they are 'true' - and for that reason he has prospered well beyond what his many shortcomings would have foretold. By contrast, it's not that Corbyn lacked 'redeeming' features. In private, journalists and voters alike invariably commented on how mild-mannered, charming, and empathetic he came off. It's that those aspects of his personality were never accentuated, nevermind repeated ad nauseum, by the people/institutions necessary to effect a public image that was more redeemable.

I sort of agree. For one thing, though, those attacks wouldn't have struck a chord if they didn't have some basis in reality - Corbyn, to many, was a revulsive character regardless of what the Daily Mail said. I do think that most people who like Boris are aware of his flaws but don't particularly care about them - who cares if he lies a bit, disrupts norms, isn't very competent: he's a politician and people have come to expect this (obviously I disagree). People did go on about how nice "Jeremy" was; this grandfatherly figure, but his perceived flaws where ones which the general public strongly disliked (seen as anti-Britain for example), whereas Boris' flaws people have stopped caring about; indeed managing to annoy the "pundits" and the Guardian is a strength.

If that's the relevant criterion for excusable flaws, Corbyn would have been the *most* popular politician! Also, saying that Corbyn was 'repulsive' (lol) regardless of what the DM wrote conveniently ignores the fact that virtually no one outside of Labour had heard of Corbyn until the DM and the rest of the print/broadcast media began coverage of his ascent to the Labour leadership, which was characterized from the outset by demonization.

Point being, neither Corbyn's, Johnson's, nor any other national politician's alleged 'flaws' need to be rooted in 'truth' to be repeated ad nauseum. What ends up catching on - and retroactively (mis)remembered as 'striking a chord' - depends more on the depth of conformity to a given line taken by major media outlets and culturally/socially connected hangers on. Johnson's clubbable bigot shtick is more compatible with that narrow elite's priorities and mindset than Corbyn's radicalism is, so Johnson was able to get a favourable portrayal of his 'flaws' (and supposed virtues) compared to Corbyn. Case in point: recall way the media completely glossed over Johnson's long history of using antisemitic tropes in his books and speeches.

[CumbrianLefty]

People have been doing the same ad nauseam with Boris Johnson and he isn't as universally reviled as Corbyn. I think it's because has some redeeming features - humourous, intelligent, annoys the right people - which Corbyn didn't have.

Cynically, his main "redeeming feature" compared to Corbyn is that he has lots of the media on side.

[cp]

People have been doing the same ad nauseam with Boris Johnson and he isn't as universally reviled as Corbyn. I think it's because has some redeeming features - humourous, intelligent, annoys the right people - which Corbyn didn't have.

Cynically, his main "redeeming feature" compared to Corbyn is that he has lots of the media on side.

Agreed, though I think it's uncharitable to say that's a cynical read. It's undeniably true. What it points to, depressingly, is how difficult it is in the UK at the moment to distinguish between having the media on side by dint of good politicking and merely being the beneficiary of incestuous affection from likeminded powerful toffs.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

(we are not discussing the balance today, thanks!)

Oh well.

[CumbrianLefty]

This was always inevitable

[Zinneke]

What about Starmers treatment by the media compared to Corbyn's?

[CumbrianLefty]

What about Starmers treatment by the media compared to Corbyn's?

Well it is, unsurprisingly, better.

Equally though, its hardly 1990s Blair.

One talking point on both the right and Corbynite left, btw, is that the Tories have a blitz prepared on his time as DPP (you know, "he let Savile go free" and similar) if they ever felt really under threat by him. Even were such a plan to exist, it would surely be high risk tho.

[cp]

What about Starmers treatment by the media compared to Corbyn's?

Less overt hostility and sneering condescension from supposedly liberal outlets like the Guardian. Lots of fluff pieces about "cleaning up" Labour (read: expelling the left, sucking up to the City, 'dealing' with supposed antisemitism) all around. Aside from that, the usual Tory rags are all basically as slanted as they've been since 2007.

[CumbrianLefty]

Centrists are actually much keener on a major purge of the left from Labour's ranks (this would mean actual mass expulsions btw, not the largely tokenistic even if symbolically important measures just announced by the party) than the right, on the whole. Which maybe tells its own story.

[cp]

Centrists are actually much keener on a major purge of the left from Labour's ranks (this would mean actual mass expulsions btw, not the largely tokenistic even if symbolic measures just announced by the party) than the right, on the whole. Which maybe tells its own story.

I guess they figure if they expel enough of them the party will finally choose the right brother.

[Blair]

What about Starmers treatment by the media compared to Corbyn's?

Corbyn suffered from that the fact that a large chunk of the PLP was happy to use the papers to try and damage his leadership; in fact you use to be able to follow the (usually private) PLP meetings in live time as people briefed from out of it.

Without going through all of this it's worth noting that Starmers worse period of press (March-May 2021) came when the same corbynsceptics soured on him and returned to form by briefing against him and his staff.

To their credit when the campaign group (the left wing grouping of MPs in Labour) are angry they either vent privately or in some cases take to twitter- other parts of the PLP pick up a phone and rant to journalists!

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

One talking point on both the right and Corbynite left, btw, is that the Tories have a blitz prepared on his time as DPP (you know, "he let Savile go free" and similar) if they ever felt really under threat by him. Even were such a plan to exist, it would surely be high risk tho.

I'm not familiar with Starmer's record as DPP. Did he (or could he reasonably be framed as having) let Savile go free? I know Savile's behavior was widely known in, and covered up by, the BBC and NHS, but I hadn't heard about figures like Starmer being in a position to know about it.

[Blair]

One talking point on both the right and Corbynite left, btw, is that the Tories have a blitz prepared on his time as DPP (you know, "he let Savile go free" and similar) if they ever felt really under threat by him. Even were such a plan to exist, it would surely be high risk tho.

I'm not familiar with Starmer's record as DPP. Did he (or could he reasonably be framed as having) let Savile go free? I know Savile's behavior was widely known in, and covered up by, the BBC and NHS, but I hadn't heard about figures like Starmer being in a position to know about it.

Not personally- but he was the head when the decision was made. I’m not an expert in these things but it seems to largely be a case of the police not doing as much as they should and then the CPS just rubber stamped this decision. Saville was never arrested let alone charged in 2008

The irony of it all is that he actually talked about this case when he spoke how he reformed the CPS practices around both Jimmy Savile and other grooming/sexual assault cases in a law lecture he did in 2014. It’s on YouTube and worth watching- purely because like most people he’s a lot better talking about something he’s interested in!

It was one of the few achievements (at a much budget constraint CPS) that he was able to reform how these cases are handled.

It could be an issue but a lot of the people sharing it are people who rant about Labour supporting grooming gangs or Gordon Brown selling ‘our gold’.

Edit: on reflection the biggest issue is most people don’t really know what the CPS is let alone the DPP- I wonder if it’s an American import into British politicos mind?

[Geoffrey Howe]

Sorry, I've been offline a bit. No doubt, the media wasn't especially kind to Corbyn. But it's impossible to argue with someone if you attribute anything the public thinks to what "the media" allegedly wants. Lots on the right think "the media" is biased against them. And anyway, surely what the big newspapers think is less important in an age of social media?

[CumbrianLefty]

Lots on the right think "the media" is biased against them. And anyway, surely what the big newspapers think is less important in an age of social media?

The point is, right wingers have much less justification for thinking so (especially since the BBC was effectively neutered a decade or so ago)

And tbh I used to think the same about newspapers, but even whilst their actual circulations continue to drop relentlessly the broadcast media obediently follow their agendas as much as ever. As long as that remains the case, the hard right megalomaniacs who are almost their sole owners will continue to see them as a viable prospect - even as money is being obstensibly chucked down the drain.

[Blair]

GMB in a spat with Islington council have withdrawn funding to London Labour.

People are getting very excited… especially those who should know better.

[CumbrianLefty]

In other news, R*s*e D*f*i*l* is doing transphobia again

[Estrella]

In other news, R*s*e D*f*i*l* is doing transphobia again

Is there some kind of correlation between TERFery and left/right position, or are those people everywhere?

[CumbrianLefty]

Its actually quite interesting in that respect - whilst there *is* a strand of Labour right politics that is quite receptive to TERFery (and the overlap with "lifestyle feminism" types is pretty strong) there are plenty of others on that wing - including several well known Blairites - who are very pro-trans rights. And some on the Corbynite wing (eg Burgon and Pidcock) who have at least dabbled in GC politics, plus certain Labour left activists lower down the party who are unashamed TERFs.

[Blair]

I broadly categorise myself as someone on the Labour right who supports trans right and find it rather depressing how many LGBT politicians on the right of the party are overlooking this case because of personal friendships, or factional issues. But more broadly it’s not a left right issue

In other news the below has caused some rather hilarious Twitter rebuttal from Mac the Knife… it’s an interesting read even if like most Labour books it is done by people pushing a certain view.

https://novaramedia.com/2021/07/27/heres-what-really-happened-when-starmer-suspended-corbyn/