Labour

[Buzzer]

Not the wisest appointment but then, how many voters does it really lose? I imagine there are more people in rural areas with six-fingers on each hand than there are Labour voters.

Don't think this a first though. I have an idea that an agriculture minister in the Welsh Assembly was veggie

I don't think the damage will just be done in rural areas, it plays into the hands of Corbyn's opponents once again. It's an accumulative drip-drip-drip and it shows spectacular naivety on the part of this shadow minister.

 

[supaseagull]

This is another vote-winner. The Shadow Farming Minister wants meat eaters to be treated like smokers.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ear...ew-vegan-farming-minister-Kerry-McCarthy.html

I fully acknowledge that her views are deeply felt and sincere but elevating someone with such an extreme position on meat and dairy to be the Shadow Farming Minister is just idiocy.

So you expect a Conservative supporting newspaper to be a credible source of journalism?

I had you down to be a little more intellectual than that Buzzer

 

[Kuipers Supporters Club]

Corbyn reiterates his stance on a 'United Ireland'. Britain could no more occupy Nothern Ireland than it could Newcastle.

 

[Buzzer]

So you expect a Conservative supporting newspaper to be a credible source of journalism?

I had you down to be a little more intellectual than that Buzzer

Oh come on! The Telegraph not credible? It may be biased to the Tories but to claim it isn't credible is just childish. She quite clearly said it and they have reported it.

Okay, you don't like the fact that the Telegraph reported it. How about the Independent? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...dow-environment-secretary-kerry-10515299.html

 

[beorhthelm]

Don't think this a first though. I have an idea that an agriculture minister in the Welsh Assembly was veggie

there's a gulf of difference between being a veggie and being openly hostile towards meat eaters.

 

[Gwylan]

Oh come on! The Telegraph not credible? It may be biased to the Tories but to claim it isn't credible is just childish. She quite clearly said it and they have reported it.

Okay, you don't like the fact that the Telegraph reported it. How about the Independent? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...dow-environment-secretary-kerry-10515299.html

I like the way that you get around the fact that the source is a Tory-supporting newspaper by quoting another one
Although I don't dispute that it's a credible quote.

I'm still not convinced it's a vote loser though. As I said, it's not the wisest appointment but I really don't think it's going to be major factor in people's voting.

In fact, I'd say that these constant attacks on Corbyn's judgment will be ultimately counter-productive. The appointment of a vegan agricultural spokeswoman is no ludicrous than the appointment of a minister for equality who voted against gay marriage ... which Cameron has done twice.

Sooner or later, people will notice double standards like that and it will rebound on the likes of the Telegraph. We saw a glimpse of it last weekend when the Mail and Telegraph mocked Corbyn for not attending the rugby when he was holding his constituency surgery - he got a wave of support for that and the papers are in danger of over-doing the ridicule

 

[Buzzer]

I like the way that you get around the fact that the source is a Tory-supporting newspaper by quoting another one .

Sorry but that's absolute nonsense.They gave a very reluctant endorsement of the Tories last time and purely on their belief of Labour's economic incompetence. They saw the Tories as the lesser of two evils. They'd been staunchly left of centre all the time before that and a regular read of their opinions and columnists shows that they are back in that left of centre ground. In fact, they are living up to their name here aren't they and that's surely to be applauded.

This won't be a major issue but as I say, it's a drip-drip of needless bad headlines.

 

[BigGully]

I like the way that you get around the fact that the source is a Tory-supporting newspaper by quoting another one
Although I don't dispute that it's a credible quote.

I'm still not convinced it's a vote loser though. As I said, it's not the wisest appointment but I really don't think it's going to be major factor in people's voting.

Politically if someone perceives it an unwise then that can only be in the context of losing votes otherwise, er well it would be wise !!

 

[BigGully]

Any paper that is biased is not credible. Papers should report the facts not opinions or viewpoints.

How do you report any persons words, without some sort of interpretation, view or opinion.

What you are really saying that they should report a view that concurs with yours ......................

 

[Buzzer]

Any paper that is biased is not credible. Papers should report the facts not opinions or viewpoints.

Sorry but that's utter rubbish. Papers can report how they like within guidelines, they are private enterprises and aim for a specific market sector. However, all broadsheets are very capable of giving credible reports on the news and they all do this well. It's in their business interests to do so but it doesn't stop all broadsheets showing bias towards one view point or the other. Have you even bothered to read the article in the Telegraph and Independent? To dismiss a broadsheet completely out of hand as not credible just because you disagree with their editorial slant is plain stupid.

 

[Seagull27]

To be fair, while I don't entirely agree with what she says about stopping people eating meat, I do think more needs to be done to raise the awareness of how environmentally damaging, unsustainable and unhealthy the amount of meat we eat is.

 

[beorhthelm]

Any paper that is biased is not credible. Papers should report the facts not opinions or viewpoints.

you silly old romantic fool.

you wont find any news outlet that doesnt have some bias, its human nature and normally there isnt enough space/time to give fully all sides of a story. the credible ones are those that keep the editorialising to a minimum (or columns) or at least well into the article. the less credible will start that from the headline, with the really bad ones often changing tone between that and the first few paragraphs.

 

[Gwylan]

Sorry but that's absolute nonsense.They gave a very reluctant endorsement of the Tories last time and purely on their belief of Labour's economic incompetence. They saw the Tories as the lesser of two evils. They'd been staunchly left of centre all the time before that and a regular read of their opinions and columnists shows that they are back in that left of centre ground. In fact, they are living up to their name here aren't they and that's surely to be applauded.

This won't be a major issue but as I say, it's a drip-drip of needless bad headlines.

Sorry but you're talking nonsense here. The gauge of where a newspaper is politically placed is who it plumps for at elections. Just four months ago,the Indy planted itself in the Tory camp and until there's another election and it make another choice, it's a Tory-supporting newspaper.

Besides, you appear to be contradicting yourself here. According to your post, the appointment of a vegan shadow minister was another sign of Corbyn incomptence. Yet now you're saying that the Indy was Tory because of the incompetence of the Miliband-led Labour but now Corbyn's been elected, it's switched to Labour. If he's so incompetent, how has he managed to do that?

 

[Buzzer]

Far more worrying is the speech that Jon Cruddas gave the other night that was transcribed in full on LabourList. It was about the enquiry that the Labour Party set up to investigate why it lost the last election. I've summarised his points for brevity.

http://labourlist.org/2015/09/jon-cruddas-labour-is-lost-in-england/

First. It was pragmatic-minded voters who dealt Labour its devastating electoral defeat. Voters whose main concern is their personal financial circumstances abandoned us; many at the last hour. We lacked economic credibility. They didn’t trust us with their taxes.

Second. We lost because voters believed we were anti-austerity. The Tories won because of austerity. Voters did not reject Labour because they saw it as austerity lite. They rejected Labour because they thought the Party was anti-austerity lite.

Third. Labour is losing its working class support and UKIP benefits.

Fourth. Since 2010 Labour has marched decisively away from the views of voters on issues that are fundamental to our electoral prospects: immigration, personal financial interest, welfare, public services, and business.

Fifth. Labour is becoming the toxic party. We asked voters a question about their voting preference. Did they, ‘always vote’ for a particular political party, ‘sometimes vote for it’, ‘consider voting for it’ or, ‘never vote for it’. The toxicity score for each party is measured by the proportion of the electorate that say they will ‘never vote’ for it. Labour is now as toxic in the South as the Tories are in the North.
...
"I take three lessons from these findings in England and Wales:
...
The first is that the electorate is economically radical and fiscally conservative.
The second lesson is that identity and belonging drive politics. The response to the SNP amongst Welsh and English voters reflects the growing politics of identity and belonging, and the increasingly federal nature of the UK

The third lesson is that Labour is becoming an exclusive cultural brand. The desertion of socially conservative voters heralds a broader trend of working class detachment from Labour both in the electorate and in party membership. Labour is now overwhelmingly a party of the socially liberal and progressively minded.
...
To conclude Labour is not in good shape in England. We collided with the electorate in May and our post-election research has empirically exposed the scale of our problem. We can either ignore it or try to understand it. The clock is ticking we had better change tack soon or face the consequences."


As a piece of frank and honest analysis it's devastating. Cruddas is no Blairite stooge, he's steeped in the Labour tradition and if the findings are as Cruddas says then Corbyn stands no chance whatsoever and his many supporters on here and social media have utterly deluded themselves in thinking that Corbyn can win England over.

 

[beorhthelm]

clearly in some views its simply Mirror/Grauniad/Morning Star are left, everyone else is nasty. except BBC which is the opposite of your views.

(anyone ever noticed the irony Morningstar is also the name of a financial information company?)

 

[Buzzer]

Sorry but you're talking nonsense here. The gauge of where a newspaper is politically placed is who it plumps for at elections. Just four months ago,the Indy planted itself in the Tory camp and until there's another election and it make another choice, it's a Tory-supporting newspaper.

The Indy was only ever a reluctant supporter and it all boiled down to economic prudence. If someone votes tactically or reluctantly to keep another party out, it doesn't necessarily make them a supporter of the party they voted for. They went for who they thought was best for Britain and they did it through gritted teeth. The Indy is NOT a Tory rag. I voted for Caroline Lucas in the elections because I thought she was best for my constituency. I can assure you I'm no Green supporter.

Besides, you appear to be contradicting yourself here. According to your post, the appointment of a vegan shadow minister was another sign of Corbyn incomptence. Yet now you're saying that the Indy was Tory because of the incompetence of the Miliband-led Labour but now Corbyn's been elected, it's switched to Labour. If he's so incompetent, how has he managed to do that?

Hang on - I never said the Indy has gone back to supporting a Corbyn-led Labour, I said it was back in the left of centre ground. So no, no contradiction at all.

 

[Gwylan]

Hang on - I never said the Indy has gone back to supporting a Corbyn-led Labour, I said it was back in the left of centre ground. So no, no contradiction at all.

Back? The Indy has always been well, independent, and hasn't backed anyone. That's what made its call for Tories so shocking. And we're not talking the mists of history here, this was only four months ago. I'd say that it's gone back to being pretty central - just had a look at its comments page and there are couple of anti Tory/pro Labour articles and a couple of pro Tory/anti Labour ones - certainly nothing to say it's left of centre

 

[albion534]

To be fair, while I don't entirely agree with what she says about stopping people eating meat, I do think more needs to be done to raise the awareness of how environmentally damaging, unsustainable and unhealthy the amount of meat we eat is.

Hardly

 

[Bold Seagull]

As a piece of frank and honest analysis it's devastating. Cruddas is no Blairite stooge, he's steeped in the Labour tradition and if the findings are as Cruddas says then Corbyn stands no chance whatsoever and his many supporters on here and social media have utterly deluded themselves in thinking that Corbyn can win England over.

I had actually read that link earlier in the week, and correct me if I'm wrong, but this is his findings on Labour up until May, he makes no mention of Corbyn, or potential policy directions post May. It is a review of where Labour were, and a promotion of ideas of where they should go if they are to win back voters. I think you are making a bit of a leap in concluding he is saying Corrbyn stands no chance.

 

[Buzzer]

Back? The Indy has always been well, independent, and hasn't backed anyone. That's what made its call for Tories so shocking. And we're not talking the mists of history here, this was only four months ago. I'd say that it's gone back to being pretty central - just had a look at its comments page and there are couple of anti Tory/pro Labour articles and a couple of pro Tory/anti Labour ones - certainly nothing to say it's left of centre

Bloody hell, Gwylan! You want your cake and eat it. First it's a Tory rag, then you say it's always been independent. Surely choosing who they think was the least worst at a particular time rather than slavishly following party lines is a true test of independence. It seems you got the hump because they didn't pick who you wanted. You're not going to get a good idea of its stance from just one day's copy. It IS broadly just left of centre though.

As for the Independent having never backed anyone at a previous General Election...