Lot of youngsters in those heartlands But I agree, right now, Corbyn and Labour have no chance of conquering that area. But anything can happen in 4 years. People may fall in love with Corbyn and his policies, Cameron may **** up monumentally and piss people off and drive them into Labour's arms. We really don't know what will happen.
please log in to view this image The last one women only trains was posted on this thread to show he;s "mad" and it turns out his comments were actually faily balanced. if that's not proof too many eejits take the media at face value I don't know what is, they dont even realise the media is shaping their opinions.
Corbyn doesn't conform so he is a media outcast, they will continue to talk smack about him till he becomes irrelevant. Again, same thing happening in the US with Trump. Fox News, who are extreme right wing nutcase Republicans (same as Trump), hate him because he isn't owned by corporations (only his own), and could not be controlled and would be ruled by his own ego.
The key for whoever wins this leadership election - just as it is for the Tories although they are in the stronger position being more stable and in power - is to persuade the swing voters in this country that they are electable, strong and convincing as head of state. Miliband failed to do this and was perceived by most voters - except the 'milifandom' of ineligible 16 year old girls, great work Ed - as meek, feeble and not a little bit weird. Most voters in the UK are swing voters whose vote can be won or lost by any of the main parties right up until the moment they pick up that tiny pencil tied to a bit of string and put an X on the ballot paper Committed Labour voters, committed Tory voters alone aren't enough to win an election, you need to capture the imagination and make believers of the uncommitted
I reckon he pissed Murdock off in some way Yeah the media are all having a go at Corbyn, right left and middle.
It's pretty ****ing tragic and only a quantum of what the media are doing on a daily basis. You have to be skeptical every time you read or see anything now from the media or government.
Its more Roger Ayres, the director of Fox News. And its because, in a Presidential debate, Fox Anchor Meghan Kelly asked Trump about some extremely sexist tweets he had made, and Trump couldn't answer and was made to look a fool, so he attacked Meghan Kelly (again via Twitter) and then accused her of being on her period. This is a guy running for President, the so called "Leader of the free World".
question: doyou think those voters went for the tories in the last election, or against labour? that's the negativity of our system, I suppose. About time Labour sets its stall out and is unapologetic about it, rather than trying not to make any mistakes and upsetting the Mail. And even if that doesn't lead to power, so be it.
I don't read newspapers anymore, maybe I'll glance at a couple online only to see what drivel and self-serving, agenda pushing, distorted 'stories' (actually story is the best word and probably doesn't need the ironic inverted commas since most of the stuff you read in those things is a specific kind of fiction) they're foisting on the vulnerable, the gullible, the happy in their ignorance and the just don't give a ****s for the interested overlords. And I certainly don't bother with tv news.
that's the thing though, yer one megan kelly is a racist xenophobic religiously intolerant ****, she was on her rag. She is ALWAYS on her rag/ That's why many like trump, you claim he did something and he says "yeah I did something.. what?" Where as Hillary Clinton has had several government investiations into her dealings, has links to known scumbags, does government work on her own email servers and then deletes the data. Used her foundation and her job in the state department to take money from sinister governments Sorry "donations" for state department favours, one case, Algeria was on the State department's list of countries that support terrorism, a donation to the Clinton foundation and hey presto, off the terror supporting list. You think Trump is worse? Not a chance. Clintons are scumbags mate, if you only knew. Between them Trump is the best of a bad bunch.
Headline writers in sensationalism shocker You say it like it's something new. Newspapers create headlines that grab attention and sell papers. Fortunately in the internet age their influence is infinitely less than is was in the 70's / 80's when Fleet st were literally the kingmakers of British politics. These days information is far more easily accessed and those wh o have an interest are generally much better informed.
Has to be both. Some will have been convinced the Tories were the stronger option - which they were in terms of creating an overall perception that they were the strongest option to run the country, Labour flunked out on this and lost major ground here because they were still trying to define policy and Miliband was still having to justify himself as leader a lot of the time (if his legitimacy as the leader of his own party was in doubt then how could he build any sense of legitimacy as the next PM ??). Some voters I'm sure will have looked at Labour and deliberately gone the other way as a kind of penalty vote to demonstrate their disregard for them. Choose the Tories, punish Labour, it's the same thing in the end. If Corbyn gets it I honestly don't think he'll be worried about upsetting any news or media outlet. I imagine he'll keep doing what he has been which is speaking his mind and not being slippery and evasive. Much of his momentum and rise in this race has come through social media, people sharing Corbyn related content and creating their own content. There are people who are tuned in to the fact that the traditional media - all of which has now shifted platform - isn't a public service anymore (I say anymore but when was it ever ??) but is a self-interested, warped by corporate interests, fantasy world. I think the real problem is people don't actually like being confronted by reality, the reality that they exist in the world, it terrifies them and makes them very uncomfortable, as it should all of the disgraceful things that go on, better, easier for them to stay in the protective bubble kindly provided for them by the elites.
He really isn't Larry Lessig or Bernie Sanders would be my choice probably. Just being a Republican would instantly disqualify someone from my vote. The US right wing isn't like our right wing........Hilary Clinton is more akin to our right wing, and in America she is considered left.
Of course. But he is getting at something more than sensationalism, namely the pernicious, hostile, ignorance making agenda of much of the media towards the populace. I mean, what purpose do tabloids even serve ?? How are they making us a better society and enhancing our sense of togetherness as humans ?? They're not, of course they're not. Their economic and political interest is best served by preserving and constantly reminding people of how much animosity and division it's possible to feel towards one another but to partially mask this with fluff celeb gossip and stories about a sausage roll somehow shaped like the taj mahal. New online providers of news and current affairs and social media activism have helped balance and address this and lead to a more intelligent and consciously aware kind of media, but the move of the major newspapers online means that they continue to dominate, they have familiar names so a lot of people gravitate there because it's easy, it's already established as a go-to news source, rather than put in a little more effort and use one of the less biased, less corrupted, new sites
I know..... He would be the most disastrous President in History. Guy has the mind of a ****ing child, and an ego to match. In his case, and his case alone, the fact that he wouldn't be beholden to any corporate backers would be a bad thing.......purely because he is batshit crazy and would do an enormous amount of harm if left unchecked. He is like an older version of Joffrey from Game of Thrones.
