Quite impressed by Corbyn's opening speech in Battersea. As many will be aware I don't like the bloke. But I do acknowledge that as a campaigner he is more than capable of raising his game a couple of notches. In my opinion Pfeffel won't take him on face to face because I think he would lose.
A quick glance at Facebook earlier, (still at work so can’t research it) I noticed a report from 2015, I think, admonishing Corbyn because his wife owns a coffee company and wasn’t paying the growers a fair wage, although I think I saw a reference to the coffee being Fairtrade. Does she own a coffee company and is she fleecing the growers? My take on the part of the report that I glanced at was that it was written by a UKIP supporter and he seems to think that Corbyn should be able to control his wife’s business interests and tell her how to run it. I thought the age of a husband controlling his wife had ended. Heck, we might even have reached the stage when we might have a female Prime Minister.
Once people start listening to what JC says, rather than what other people say about him, a lot of opinions will change.
Just like when you ask someone why they voted Leave, and they trot out an inaccurate answer that they have read in the paper, asking someone why they don’t like Corbyn gets the same response, for me. A guy at work commented that Corbyn had attended an IRA funeral wearing an “I heart the IRA”. When I looked online, the photo shopped photo had Corbyn at a funeral, wearing shorts and T-shirt, and carrying a newspaper in his left hand. Why can’t people see how false these things are? Another good one is “He is so far left he’s almost Russian”. I just remind them that it is the Tory party that receives donations from Russian donors, so maybe the Tory party is Russian.
Here’s Jezza’s speech in full, well worth a watch. You will need to scroll through about 12 minutes to the start:
For old people, maybe. But there's still reddit, the various chans, Gab, all sorts of message boards, and whatever else. Twitter and Facebook are private companies, so they can do what they want. If they don't want whatever content on their servers, that's their right. But it's not going to do a thing to improve discourse. Fox has been lying for 20 years. Same with conservative talk radio.
Possibly. Those really vicious, targeted attack ads that are a feature of your elections, are something you don't see on TV over here. They're a relatively recent phenomenon emanating almost exclusively from Facebook. The idea that private companies should be allowed to do what they want reflects an American outlook that wouldn't have the same universal acceptance over here. Much like freedom of speech, which is seen as an absolute right in North America, but which comes with certain responsibilities in Europe.
In 2000 years the human race will have forgotten all about halloween, but we'll celebrate Brexit day with masks of deceit, and candy from the confused. Long live the Brexit celebration................
Like all those years he bashed the EU? I kinda feel like people are right not to fully trust him when it comes to Brexit. You take your chances of splitting votes if you vote for another party but for those who are primarily concerned with staying in the EU, I don't think Corbyn makes for a very convincing Remain leader. I also feel like he is unfortunately selling a bit of the same slop that the Leave people are. It's just that he thinks those unachievable promises will come from maybe kind of temporarily staying or being a half member or waiting or something? instead of through leaving. OTOH, it's kind of frustrating that the left seemingly has to pitch the perfect game. Uniting everyone's disparate interests, getting everyone energized, carefully plotting their strategy, etc. Whatever happens, there will probably be finger pointing from various left factions. It's like whoever wants to lead the left has to get three dozen things exactly right. In the meantime, the leavers can do the exact opposite of what's right on all three dozen things and it doesn't matter. I am not sure I fully trust Corbyn to navigate the difficult waters of trying to figure out the best answer to an incredibly complex foreign policy issue while at the same time dealing with a domestic audience that is deeply divided, even somewhat in his own party. But I am 100% sure I wouldn't even trust Johnson or Farage to run my no-money office Fantasy Football League. So it's weird to even being talking about it.
Corbyn, and Labour, have been consistent about Brexit once you look at what they have actually been saying. The six tests for any Withdrawal Agreement are the following: 1. Does it ensure a strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU? 2. Does it deliver the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union? 3. Does it ensure the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities? 4. Does it defend rights and protections and prevent a race to the bottom? 5. Does it protect national security and our capacity to tackle cross-border crime? 6. Does it deliver for all regions and nations of the UK? Neither May’s deal nor Johnson’s version of it meet these criteria. If elected, Labour will attempt to achieve a deal which meet all the tests, and then put it to a confirmatory referendum. They will decide whether or not to recommend the deal once the full details are known. They have been saying this, if you listened through the media white noise, since May 2017, when Keir Starmer announced the 6 tests.
Yeah, we allow all sorts of money and advertising into political campaigns that they don't in other places. And to be clear, I'm not saying the world has to do it our way. Our way actually kind of sucks, tbh. If the UK or any other country does not like political ads, they should feel free to make a law against Facebook ads, or apply existing laws. And of course FB should abide by all applicable laws. I think that's the best way for FB to remain neutral. But by self-censoring, they're just creating a mess. Suppose that in order to gain a foothold in China, Facebook agrees to censor content critical of the Chinese government. They'd get slammed for that. But if they remove content to appease Europeans, it's okay? No, not even then because probably the right wing factions that use Facebook will complain that FB is politically biased. To me, Facebook should censor content in China if that's what China wants, and let everyone post/advertise whatever they want in the US if that's what the US wants, and ban hate speech and political advertising in Europe if that's what Europe wants. Let the users control the flow of information, or in this case the countries as a proxy for a section of a user base.
Both the Tories and LibDems will try to fight this as a single issue, Brexit election. Labour will want to move the conversation onto austerity, inequality, public services, tax dodging multinational businesses, and the power of the 1% to abuse and manipulate the 99%. I suspect that message may resonate. We’ll see
Have rejoined the party after a bit of a hiatus (since the Blair years began really) and will be doing my bit of campaigning. I've already turned my parents, although I've advised them to vote LibDem where they are to get rid of the useless Tory who currently occupies the space where a useful MP could be - they used to have Tessa Munt there but now have James Heappey who even if he wasn't a Tory, would be a serious downgrade on Tessa (as Chilco well knows)
Good on you RJ. Tessa is great, what impresses me more than anything about her is that she seems to have an eidetic memory for names and faces. I was introduced to her by friends who had campaigned for her and then met her again a few weeks later, and she remembered my name! Not just me either, others have pointed out the same thing. And James Heappey is worse than useless!
