Support NeoGAF

[Poodlestrike]

The great tragedy of democracy is that it literally could not matter less whether you're right or wrong. All that counts is whether or not you can convince people that you're right, and I think it's fair to say at this point that Corbyn has been an utter failure at that, outside of his base.

 

[Lashley]

Doesn't surprise me at all

 

[CyclopsRock]

Powerful as in, they have the ability to influence millions of people. As in, the widely accepted narrative that a Conservative government is the one you can trust to look after public finances.

But why do you think that's a result of a powerful media conspiracy? Isn't the far more likely explanation that, after a decade of socialist strife, Labour looked tired and out of ideas which ushered in 18 years of Thatcher and Major. By 1997 the Tory party was looking tired and out of ideas, Labour then became the party whom the people trusted until they, in turn became tired and out of ideas after 13 years and thus the Tories "won" with such a pathetic wimper that they had to have a coalition. Round and round and round we go, where it stops? Nobody knows Is fairly obvious to anyone that's been paying attention. The Tories will stay in power whilst Labour "finds itself" and when it does the Tories will seem tired and out of ideas by comparison, and Labour will win. Not only is this a predictable political cycle, but the weak nature of the Tory victory doesn't speak to a particularly powerful media cabal behind them.

 

[Empty]

it's idiotic to poll policies in isolation and it tells you absolutely nothing.

however the repeated championing of these stories about corbyn's policies seems to come from the deeply held and damaging delusion of many in the left in the uk (a delusion miraculously persisting beyond the double blow of the 2015 election and the brexit vote) that we are secretly a left wing country that's just being held back by the undemocratic forces of the mainstream media, first past the post, ignoring non-voters who supposedly are all just biding their time for a cyclist vegetarian who wants nuclear disarmament & backstabbing blairites. aka. everyone secretly agrees with us if they'd simply be allowed. no effort needs to be made to actually win over the electorate. no sacrifices, no compromise.

 

[Coriolanus]

Exactly. Any leftist worth his salt should be backing a land-value tax. It's the only efficient, progressive tax that will bring in revenue sufficient to fund the government. It also taxes wealth, rather than income, which is good.

hmm, don't think i've ever seen leftists being opposed to land-value taxes (or to taxing religion, for that matter). Is just that they also want to stick it to the rich, which is an understandable sentiment, to a degree.

but yes, the argument for land-value taxes pretty much builds itself the more one thinks about it. Can also see a whole host of secondary positive effects emanating from it, especially if a distinction is made to charge extra for unoccupied buildings.

hrm, wonder what the negatives would be.

 

[Statue of Limitation]

Corbyn is unelectable they say.

A Labour which is just a Torrie-me-too party is unelectable - the last two elections show that. It's all well and good saying Labour needs to group together and sort themselves out - but at the end of the day thats just repeating the verbiage the Tory press is feeding you.

Corbyn's policies do represet a different way of thinking, an opposite way of thinking, an opposition to the people already in charge. Mad that?

But Corbyn is unelctable. That's why the labour party tried to go through the back door to get rid of them, and when they took it to a vote people elected him. Unelectable though. According to The Sun anyhow.

Why again? Because he wears a white poppy and owns a bicycle and a load of other shit? Corbyn could have the charm of Obama, dress sense of Tony Stark and could defuse a bomb at a church orphanage and the press is still going to mock him for eating a sandwhich.

 

[kirblar]

Of course people like them better without his name involved, he's a blazing dumpster fire of a leader that no reasonable person could trust to lead a boy scout troop, let alone a country.

 

[twobear]

corbyn-labour needs to get a lot better at playing the media game, that's really all there is to it.

 

[LordRaptor]

hrm, wonder what the negatives would be.

IIRC, all MPs are legally obligated to have housing within the sound of the division bell as well as in their own constituency, so MPs are automatically going to be financially disincentivised to push for any such legislation.

 

[GeordieMark]

Disagree. The style of politics he represents - of substance over style - is better than the scum we've endured over the last gods know how many decades.

What substance? Im not seeing any evidence of style, substance or leadership. Hes too idealistic and nowhere near pragmatic enough to lead a major Party. The public may have fucked up the Brexit vote but they know what's up with Corbyn.

 

[Jezbollah]

The media can only be to blame to some extent. It can't be blamed when so many of Corbyn's own MPs are against him and his crew. When 53% of your own voters are considering not voting for you in the next election then you have a major fucking issue that needs more than just being better with media.

 

[StayDead]

There isn't a single thing you could do that would be worse for the working classes than increasing the corporate tax rate.

What? Why?

 

[Piecake]

Most of us know, on a gut level, that this rationalization process happens.

Back in 2008, Republicans were inclined to emphasize the risk of electing an inexperienced commander in chief, while eight years later Democrats are bragging about having the most qualified nominee ever. Simply put, for most people, attachments to parties and candidates are more profound and more fundamental than attachments to issue positions. People take cues from high-profile party leaders and bring their opinions in line with what figures they admire think.

This happens on even basic factual questions. And it afflicts not only inattentive, “low-information” voters but highly attentive ones too.

Indeed, Bartels and Achen show that in some ways, highly attuned voters are simply better at misinforming themselves. Back in the 1990s, for example, the budget deficit was falling rapidly, and Bill Clinton liked to tout this fact. Under the circumstances, it’s perhaps not so surprising that Democrats were more likely than Republicans to correctly state that the deficit was declining.

What is surprising is that, as Bartels and Achen showed in a classic 2006 paper, it’s not the uninformed Republicans who are more likely to have gotten this wrong. Instead, the more attention a given Republican paid to politics and political news, the more likely he was to mistakenly believe the deficit was rising during the Clinton years. Paying more attention to politics, in other words, didn’t make people more informed about the underlying issue — it made them more informed about partisan talking points. Attentive Republicans knew that bragging about the falling deficit was a thing Clinton and his allies did, and they knew they didn’t like Clinton and his allies, so they “knew” he was wrong.

Ignorance of political issues has always been with us, and folk theorists know how to deal with it — you simply assume that ignorance leads to random error, and that actual political outcomes are being driven primarily by a disproportionately well-informed minority.

The fact that citizens are getting their views on issues from the politicians they support and not vice versa — and that the most informed citizens are most likely to do so — is simply devastating to the folk theory. Voters cannot be selecting leaders whose stances they agree with if it turns out that voters are learning what stances they should agree with by taking cues from the leaders they support.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/14/12663318/bartels-achen-democracy-for-realists

Link to the book that the article is talking about

People change and adapt policy views to fit the political party or faction that they self-identify with. We aren't rationale actors who choose policy and policy ideals on its merits. We choose what to believe based on the political group that we identify with.

That is why Corbyn will be a complete failure because the labour party doesn't self-identify with him and his policies and the people who identify with the labour party, but not its hard left wing, will take their queues from those labour officials and other political institutions like The Guardian and the like

It doesnt matter if when you strip out all identity and association that Corybn's policy positions are more popular, because that is not how we decide who wins elections.

I imagine that some of you are probably thinking that you are thinking that you are some special snowflake and don't blindly follow the elites like the Labour party and establishment political institutions. Well, you are probably just deluding yourself because instead of self-identifying with that, you simply self-identify with some other political group/media outlet, etc., and take your queues from that.

 

[peanutbutterlatte]

People don't want Corbyn, but damned if I want the milque-toast Miliband Labour either. Realistically neither side will get elected (Owen Smith can't even get elected by his own party) and the Galactic Empire the Conservative party will rule on high, devouring public services and lucrative areas of the UK for the lower economic classes, for many more years. years.

 

[f0rk]

Corbyn could have the charm of Obama, dress sense of Tony Stark and could defuse a bomb at a church orphanage and the press is still going to mock him for eating a sandwhich.

Well then he'd be a completely different person, and maybe a competent leader.

 

[daviyoung]

Corbyn's policies do represet a different way of thinking, an opposite way of thinking, an opposition to the people already in charge. Mad that?

But Corbyn is unelctable. That's why the labour party tried to go through the back door to get rid of them, and when they took it to a vote people elected him. Unelectable though. According to The Sun anyhow.

Corbyn's policies might as well be non existent for how well the public knows about them. He might as well be invisible, or at best a nuisance. His supporters just sit around waiting for the great revolution, when the country suddenly wakes up and votes him in but it's those people that need to start pushing Corbyn's propaganda. Not unconsciously expect some PR, comms officer to do it for them. They're basically starting from scratch with this guy. They need to be knocking on doors and talking to old people again.