This Once Great Movement Of Ours
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 01:10:08 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  International General Discussion (Moderators: afleitch, Hash)
  This Once Great Movement Of Ours
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... 148
Author Topic: This Once Great Movement Of Ours  (Read 146743 times)
TheTide
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,595
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -1.03, S: -6.96

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #375 on: October 01, 2020, 06:29:12 AM »

When did Corrie become a daytime soap?
Logged
Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese
JOHN91043353
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,570
Sweden


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #376 on: October 01, 2020, 06:43:24 AM »

My point is that the image of politicians confected by journalists, partisans, and professional opinion-havers is the primary determinant of how said politicians are perceived. The surveys produced to quantify this process are at best seen as symptoms of their efforts or (more accurately) additional fodder for spin. Gogglebox, for all its shortcomings, at least has the virtue of capturing live and instinctual reactions. It's harder for spin doctors with budgets to pay for favourable polling to manipulate.

Cp, go and stand over in the corner with the blue avatars who claim Trump would be beloved by the massas if it wasn't for journalists and fake polls.
Logged
CumbrianLefty
CumbrianLeftie
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,601
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #377 on: October 01, 2020, 06:53:09 AM »

The shocking revelation for me is that googlebox is still on TV.

Ratings wise it pulls in at least a few million each episode. About the same as some of the better panel shows (QI, 8 out of 10 Cats), and about half as much as daytime soaps like Coronation St.

By contrast, PMQs only gets above 1M when there's a new leader or it's September 2019, and that only lasts a week.

My point is that the efforts of Starmer's acolytes to portray his forensic (ugh) performances in PMQs and the wholly predictable improvement over Corbyn's late 2019 numbers as something voters are impressed by is little more than wishful thinking.  

i've been involved in politics for 40 years now, you don't need to lecture me or others on here about how polling or the media works. We already know.

(not to mention that my criticisms of both are on the record here and elsewhere)

And my anecdotal evidence - just as valid as yours - is that Starmer is doing "OK to decent" with most people. No, he doesn't inspire the devotion that Corbyn did with a minority, but that's not actually "normal". And it might mean he doesn't cause revulsion in another (ultimately larger) group either.
Logged
cp
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,612
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #378 on: October 01, 2020, 10:40:50 AM »
« Edited: October 01, 2020, 10:46:32 AM by cp »

The shocking revelation for me is that googlebox is still on TV.

Ratings wise it pulls in at least a few million each episode. About the same as some of the better panel shows (QI, 8 out of 10 Cats), and about half as much as daytime soaps like Coronation St.

By contrast, PMQs only gets above 1M when there's a new leader or it's September 2019, and that only lasts a week.

My point is that the efforts of Starmer's acolytes to portray his forensic (ugh) performances in PMQs and the wholly predictable improvement over Corbyn's late 2019 numbers as something voters are impressed by is little more than wishful thinking.  

i've been involved in politics for 40 years now, you don't need to lecture me or others on here about how polling or the media works. We already know.

(not to mention that my criticisms of both are on the record here and elsewhere)

And my anecdotal evidence - just as valid as yours - is that Starmer is doing "OK to decent" with most people. No, he doesn't inspire the devotion that Corbyn did with a minority, but that's not actually "normal". And it might mean he doesn't cause revulsion in another (ultimately larger) group either.

Ok Boomer Tongue

In all sincerity, I don't think 'OK to decent' is how most people see Starmer. For one thing, I doubt most people have seen enough of him to even form an opinion in the first place. Among those that have, perhaps 'ok to decent' was their first impression, but as the Gogglebox episode suggests, there's evidence of an emergent narrative of Starmer being weak and vacillating. I'm not saying such a narrative is necessarily fair or even accurate, but it's clearly there, and it's something that  'representative surveys' would struggle to capture.

Also, to return to the original point, I think Gogglebox has more validity than anecdotal evidence, but it is admittedly just as susceptible to curation and bias. That said, I also think it's a far better way to gauge how effectively a politician is doing (particularly the LO) than PMQs.
Logged
CumbrianLefty
CumbrianLeftie
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,601
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #379 on: October 02, 2020, 09:58:10 AM »
« Edited: October 02, 2020, 02:10:44 PM by CumbrianLeftie »

The shocking revelation for me is that googlebox is still on TV.

Ratings wise it pulls in at least a few million each episode. About the same as some of the better panel shows (QI, 8 out of 10 Cats), and about half as much as daytime soaps like Coronation St.

By contrast, PMQs only gets above 1M when there's a new leader or it's September 2019, and that only lasts a week.

My point is that the efforts of Starmer's acolytes to portray his forensic (ugh) performances in PMQs and the wholly predictable improvement over Corbyn's late 2019 numbers as something voters are impressed by is little more than wishful thinking.  

i've been involved in politics for 40 years now, you don't need to lecture me or others on here about how polling or the media works. We already know.

(not to mention that my criticisms of both are on the record here and elsewhere)

And my anecdotal evidence - just as valid as yours - is that Starmer is doing "OK to decent" with most people. No, he doesn't inspire the devotion that Corbyn did with a minority, but that's not actually "normal". And it might mean he doesn't cause revulsion in another (ultimately larger) group either.

Ok Boomer Tongue

Oi there, I was born in 1966 I will have you know Tongue

Though tbh I think the cut off birthdate for Boomers/Generation X is a bit too late at circa 1965.

In a UK context I think a good guide is the following:

Old enough to vote in the 1964 GE - Golden Generation
Old enough to vote in the 1979 GE - Boomer
Old enough to vote in the 1997 GE - Generation X
Old enough to vote in the 2015 GE - Millennial
Younger than that - Generation Y or should that actually be Z Smiley
Logged
cp
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,612
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #380 on: October 02, 2020, 10:18:45 AM »

Hehehe. Yeah, 1966 is right on the cusp. I think the US census uses it as the cutoff for the baby boom.

If I'd lived in the UK at the time the first election I would have been able to vote in was 2005, which I guess makes me a millennial. Not sure many of the people identified as such by the media would see me as one of them, though!

I've taken to calling <20s 'Zoomers' lately, if only because it lets me roll my eyes at them and say 'Ok Zoomer'.
Logged
EastAnglianLefty
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,567


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #381 on: October 02, 2020, 11:29:19 AM »

I think the very oldest millennials may have just about been able to vote in 2001.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #382 on: October 02, 2020, 12:03:16 PM »

There were actually two baby booms in the UK (one in the late 40s/early 50s and one in the early 60s), not one. Interestingly, the people born in between did not have a particularly lucky run of things (e.g. if you were born in 1953, you would typically have been entering the labour market in a serious way in the early 70s and, well, good luck with that), so a lot of the cheap, imported American generational rhetoric is not accurate and is probably needlessly aggravating.
Logged
Battista Minola 1616
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,282
Vatican City State


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -1.57

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #383 on: October 02, 2020, 12:11:42 PM »

Oi there, I was born in 1966 I will have you know Tongue

Though tbh I think the cut off birthdate for Boomers/Generation X is a bit too late at circa 1965.

In a UK context I think a good guide is the following:

Old enough to vote in the 1964 GE - Golden Generation
Old enough to vote in the 1979 GE - Boomer
Old enough to vote in the 1997 GE - Generation X
Old enough to vote in the 2015 GE - Millennial
Younger than that - Generation Y Smiley


Ahem... Generation Y is actually a synonym for Millennial.

The people my age (I was born in 2001) are the Generation Z - hence why "Zoomers", by portmanteau with baby boomers.
Logged
TheTide
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,595
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -1.03, S: -6.96

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #384 on: October 02, 2020, 12:28:37 PM »

I think the very oldest millennials may have just about been able to vote in 2001.

Youth turnout in that election was, unsurprisingly, dire. Don't have the precise estimate on me but IIRC Mori put it at somewhere around 30%.
Logged
DaWN
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,370
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #385 on: October 02, 2020, 01:06:21 PM »

a lot of the cheap, imported American generational rhetoric is not accurate and is probably needlessly aggravating.

I think that sums up the current state of our politics rather nicely
Logged
YL
YorkshireLiberal
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,511
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #386 on: October 02, 2020, 01:06:48 PM »

There were actually two baby booms in the UK (one in the late 40s/early 50s and one in the early 60s), not one. Interestingly, the people born in between did not have a particularly lucky run of things (e.g. if you were born in 1953, you would typically have been entering the labour market in a serious way in the early 70s and, well, good luck with that), so a lot of the cheap, imported American generational rhetoric is not accurate and is probably needlessly aggravating.

Is it accurate anywhere?  Give silly names to arbitrarily defined "generations" if you like, but don't expect the places where you put the boundaries to actually mean anything.
Logged
Serenity Now
tomm_86
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,174
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #387 on: October 02, 2020, 05:15:18 PM »

There were actually two baby booms in the UK (one in the late 40s/early 50s and one in the early 60s), not one. Interestingly, the people born in between did not have a particularly lucky run of things (e.g. if you were born in 1953, you would typically have been entering the labour market in a serious way in the early 70s and, well, good luck with that), so a lot of the cheap, imported American generational rhetoric is not accurate and is probably needlessly aggravating.

My parents were born around that inbetween time. I think my Dad's first job was in a labour exchange which illustrates your point rather amusingly well.
Logged
CumbrianLefty
CumbrianLeftie
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,601
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #388 on: October 03, 2020, 08:22:04 AM »

There were actually two baby booms in the UK (one in the late 40s/early 50s and one in the early 60s), not one. Interestingly, the people born in between did not have a particularly lucky run of things (e.g. if you were born in 1953, you would typically have been entering the labour market in a serious way in the early 70s and, well, good luck with that), so a lot of the cheap, imported American generational rhetoric is not accurate and is probably needlessly aggravating.

Is it accurate anywhere?  Give silly names to arbitrarily defined "generations" if you like, but don't expect the places where you put the boundaries to actually mean anything.

Sure, this is understandable and to some degree justified.

But there isn't much doubt, for example, that "boomers" are actually a real thing?
Logged
YL
YorkshireLiberal
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,511
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #389 on: October 03, 2020, 03:10:39 PM »

There were actually two baby booms in the UK (one in the late 40s/early 50s and one in the early 60s), not one. Interestingly, the people born in between did not have a particularly lucky run of things (e.g. if you were born in 1953, you would typically have been entering the labour market in a serious way in the early 70s and, well, good luck with that), so a lot of the cheap, imported American generational rhetoric is not accurate and is probably needlessly aggravating.

Is it accurate anywhere?  Give silly names to arbitrarily defined "generations" if you like, but don't expect the places where you put the boundaries to actually mean anything.

Sure, this is understandable and to some degree justified.

But there isn't much doubt, for example, that "boomers" are actually a real thing?

In the sense that there was a baby boom, yes.  But I think the great majority of present day references to "boomers" really just refer to older people generally, not specifically to those who were part of it. 

And "boomer" is the least silly of these "generation" labels.
Logged
CumbrianLefty
CumbrianLeftie
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,601
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #390 on: October 04, 2020, 09:42:36 AM »

Some do actually distinguish "boomers" from the really old tbf (and that has some relevance regarding the 2016 EU referendum amongst other things)
Logged
Statilius the Epicurean
Thersites
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,596
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #391 on: October 06, 2020, 02:00:28 PM »

Len throwing his toys out of the pram



I've seen a lot of discussion of Starmer's courting of big donors but do we know exactly how bad the financial situation the party is in with the Panorama lawsuits?
Logged
Blair
Blair2015
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,816
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #392 on: October 06, 2020, 02:10:22 PM »

Ha

Logged
Blair
Blair2015
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,816
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #393 on: October 06, 2020, 02:26:30 PM »
« Edited: October 06, 2020, 02:46:33 PM by Blair »

Some thoughts.

1.) I wonder if this is a pre-emptive kick off over the UNITE v UNISON war over numbers; UNITE have for years claimed to be the biggest union in the UK & have used this to dominate the union relationship. I wonder if this is the way of accepting they're not & getting out ahead.

2.) 'We're fed up with being taken for granted'. They were not taken for granted. That implies that Keir actually took UNITE for anything other than a colossal annoyance who have tried to fight his political project from day one.

There's basically three approaches in my view in Labour; you're my ally I'll eat sh**t for, you're someone I have a mutual interest in working with or you're someone I'm actively trying to screw over. UNITE were always firmly in the last camp with Starmer so god knows why they think anything was expected from them

3.) COVID! UNITE have generally got their main outward asks from the Labour Leadership- MPs & the Shadow Cabinet have been vocal in fighting for the aviation industry, opposed the British Airways & British Gas fire & rehire program & have generally hugged the left closest on economic issues (it's been security & cultural issues where the ground has been broken. However this isn't about industrial politics this is about Labour politics....

4.) There's probably UNITE internal politics in this. The very messy united left primary for GS went about as badly as internal elections go (although the police weren't called- the usual sign of chaos in certain CLPs) with people claiming vote rigging & so forth; the anti-Starmer choice Howard Beckett narrowly lost to the actually more left wing but less hostile Steve Turner.

Beckett is making noises about running in the full election; which could split the left vote & let in an actual moderate. So this could be either a pro-Beckett faction running interference or Turner people trying to appear loyal.

And of course it could be the fact that Len is still leader & has a term that ends in 2022 (!?) Talk about lame duck...



The last two points comes back to my central & ongoing complaint with UNITE- they're a good industrial union with generally good & skilled officals who work well with people across the movement.

However they're just let down by an overtly political executive who enjoy seeing themselves in the newspapers & who actively used the last 2 two years of Corbyns leadership to amass power, stitch up selections & ruin the party. This is not a new issue & these threats over money were made in 2014 when Len threatened to set up a 'workers party'.

There is a clear trend between the moment that the UNITE axis took over & when the party went down the drain. I can't even go through the long list of cock ups, court cases & general mayhem but where as UNITE were once a voice of moderation (they wanted Angela Eagle as Shadow Chancellor) they quickly realised they'd could shaft UNISON/GMB, work with the smaller left unions & effectively run the Labour Party- which they did!

On a final disclaimer I generally have no issue with the CWU or the TSSA; both of whom are actually further away from my own politics I'd reckon than the average UNITE offical. Of course the average UNITE member is well to my right- but we forget in all of this that UNITE officals don't equal UNITE members.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #394 on: October 06, 2020, 05:08:09 PM »

It's been as good as confirmed that Beckett was behind this. Such an impressively stupid man.
Logged
Blair
Blair2015
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,816
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #395 on: October 07, 2020, 03:23:38 AM »
« Edited: October 07, 2020, 03:50:31 AM by Blair »

In depressing news it appears to be linked to anti-semitism & settling with whistleblowers.

Ask Johnny Depp or Meghan Markle how well libel trials go.

Or perhaps ask Anna Turley about the due dilligence that UNITE have about legal costs?

It's been as good as confirmed that Beckett was behind this. Such an impressively stupid man.

I saw someone on the NEC joked that Beckett tries to come across as a legal expert but was shut down by Starmer, who might have a slightly better claim to understanding the law.
Logged
CumbrianLefty
CumbrianLeftie
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,601
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #396 on: October 07, 2020, 05:23:06 AM »

It's been as good as confirmed that Beckett was behind this. Such an impressively stupid man.

McCluskey has a few things wrong with him, but has both charm and some political nous.

Beckett seems to have Len's vices without his virtues.
Logged
EastAnglianLefty
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,567


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #397 on: October 07, 2020, 06:26:48 AM »

This does pose the interesting question of how many fewer affiliated members UNITE would have to declare before it was actually accurate.
Logged
CumbrianLefty
CumbrianLeftie
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,601
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #398 on: October 07, 2020, 06:36:47 AM »

And at the end of the day its a union reducing the money it gives to the party by 10%. An important development, certainly - but some of the commentary on it from both sides is just a tad overblown.
Logged
Blair
Blair2015
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,816
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #399 on: October 09, 2020, 02:24:14 AM »

Thoughts very welcome on this...

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2020/10/anneliese-dodds-biggest-enemy-isn-t-rishi-sunak-it-s-covid-19

Logged
Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... 148  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.056 seconds with 11 queries.