Support NeoGAF

[Dicktatorship]

This is the Socialist Workers Party. They are a trotskyite Marxist party. Former members include Andrew Fischer, Corbyn's head of policy. The leadership of Momentum is also strewn with SWP members. John McDonnell has long been associated with the SWP as a sympathiser. The SWP are notorious for attaching themselves to any left wing protest in britain and causing trouble. They have had many insidious incidents attached to them involving rape.

This is a video featuring Corbyn's campaign outside of Parliament. Can you tell me what the banners say? The Socialist Worker is the newspaper of the SWP.

Seamus Milne is a stalinite. He is Corbyn's director of communications and the right hand man of the Leader.

Corbyn's social media is run from a Marxist bookshop in Durham, the operator is also a senior member of Momentum.

Muh Marxist boogeyman. Maybe some of you should actually read Marx or at least some secondary materials written by Marx scholars/history of philosophy specialists before you conclude that his influence is wholly evil.

 

[twobear]

Muh Marxist boogeyman. Maybe some of you should actually read Marx or at least some secondary materials written by Marx scholars/history of philosophy specialists before you conclude that his influence is wholly evil.

Or, you know, exist in the real world where you can read and be influenced by something without adopting it wholesale.

 

[Billy_Pilgrim]

Muh Marxist boogeyman. Maybe some of you should actually read Marx or at least some secondary materials written by Marx scholars/history of philosophy specialists before you conclude that his influence is wholly evil.

The Labour Party is not a Marxist party. It is a social democratic party. Marxism will never, ever, ever return a government in Britain.

And yes I have read Marx, thoroughly. I like Alienation, I'll give him that.

 

[twobear]

It is a social democratic party.

Not since about 1997.

 

[Moze]

The Tories were briefing the day before the election that they might take the seat, because the soon to be MP and her team had been campaigning hard in that constituency while Balls was all over the place auditioning for Chancellor. They talked to the voters and they knew.

I cannot quite believe that people think that talking to voters is a bad way of finding out which way voters may vote.

In fact I can, it's entirely symptomatic of the corridor of delusion we're trying to fight our way out of.

That is complete nonsense and you know it. They were not nearly as confident as Balls was about winning that seat. They knew they could because the seat wasn't ever a safe seat, but based on campaigning and talking to voters, they knew nothing.

Talking to voters is misleading. It rarely says a whole lot, and failed just last week.

 

[Piecake]

You didn't reference any studies, you gestured at them.

And no, I don't have 'feelings' and 'common sense', I have a bunch of stuff that I've read about the influence of the media (presumably now to be dismissed as 'unscientific'); most recently Owen Jones' The Establishment.

For clarity, I don't believe that the relationship between the media and political views is deterministic in either direction. I think that 'the media tells everyone exactly what to believe' is just as absurd as 'the media has no influence'. The relationship is, and can only be, reciprocal.

Well, that because it is unscientific. Are you actually claiming that it is? And frankly, it sounds conspiratorial - and yes, that is me demeaning it.

As for media, I think it has a slight influence, but it is basically 90% demand driven. People will gravitate towards the media outlets that best represent their ideas and values. People can be influenced by the media that they associate with their ideas and values, but they aren't going to be influenced by a media outlet that they do not associate with.

Moreover, people have choice in media. Different media outlets target different values and ideals. People aren't forced to read the tabloids. They choose to. They could read the guardian if they wanted, but they don't because it doesnt conform to their view of the world.

http://web.stanford.edu/~gentzkow/research/handbook.pdf

That isnt the study that I was looking for, but it is alright. It also mentions supply side bias, but mentions that competition largely removes that. This is likely why you see Russia's media propaganda being so effective and why studies about media and opinion in societies with free speech and media coming up demand.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...-changing-somebody-s-mind-or-yours-is-hard-do

These have to deal with confirmation bias and the near impossibility of someone changing someone else's opinion.

 

[Billy_Pilgrim]

That is complete nonsense and you know it. They were not nearly as confident as Balls was about winning that seat. They knew they could because the seat wasn't ever a safe seat, but based on campaigning and talking to voters, they knew nothing.

Talking to voters is misleading. It rarely says a whole lot, and failed just last week.

If you search through my post history, you will find that I correctly predicted a Leave vote based upon my experiences campaigning for Remain in the North East.

 

[Moze]

If you search through my post history, you will find that I correctly predicted a Leave vote based upon my experiences campaigning for Remain in the North East.

That's irrelevant unless you predicted how much of a majority it was.

 

[pigeon]

I don't fully understand this comment. Talking to voters is an awful way of gauging sentiment. That's the main reason Ed Balls lost his seat last year. He gave up campaigning a few days before because he was confident he was going to win based on what he had seen and heard.

Wait, so how do you propose gauging sentiment? Polls also show Corbyn having serious electability problems.

 

[Piecake]

A survey of 2000 people? OK. To post a political poll as a source in the current climate is madness. Polls are wrong. They were wrong in the general election last year. They were wrong last week.

polls had brexit basically even, and it was basically even with Leave winning.

2000 people is plenty sufficient for a poll. If all you were going to do was shit on the evidence when you knew it was going to be a poll, then what was the point of asking for it?

As for last election, the apparent issue was underrepresented of certain voters in the polls. This poll is a lot more targeted because it is only surveying labour voters. Could the 1/3rd be wrong? I guess, but the margin for error certainly isnt going to be like 25%

 

[kirblar]

2000 is way more than enough for a country the size of the US, let alone the UK.

 

[whyamihere]

A survey of 2000 people? OK. To post a political poll as a source in the current climate is madness. Polls are wrong. They were wrong in the general election last year. They were wrong last week.

Yes, that's how scientific polls operate. You take a small sample, weigh different conditions based on maybe demographic data, and then extrapolate it out towards the wider electorate. That's why the showed the race within a dead heat last week (which it was, a 4% margin is extremely close).

 

[Billy_Pilgrim]

That's irrelevant unless you predicted how much of a majority it was.

It's not irrelevant. Labour voters told me that they were voting leave and would not be voting for Corbyn. It came to pass that in Durham Labour voters voted Leave. The second part of the prophecy has yet to pass.

 

[pigeon]

A survey of 2000 people? OK. To post a political poll as a source in the current climate is madness. Polls are wrong. They were wrong in the general election last year. They were wrong last week.

Okay, I missed this post.

So you don't believe in polls.

You don't believe in talking to people.

How, exactly, do you propose judging whether a candidate can be popular among the general electorate? Is the future unknowable?

 

[twobear]

Well, that because it is unscientific. Are you actually claiming that it is? And frankly, it sounds conspiratorial - and yes, that is me demeaning it.

As for media, I think it has a slight influence, but it is basically 90% demand driven. People will gravitate towards the media outlets that best represent their ideas and values. People can be influenced by the media that they associate with their ideas and values, but they aren't going to be influenced by a media outlet that they do not associate with.

Moreover, people have choice in media. Different media outlets target different values and ideals. People aren't forced to read the tabloids. They choose to. They could read the guardian if they wanted, but they don't because it doesnt conform to their view of the world.

http://web.stanford.edu/~gentzkow/research/handbook.pdf

That isnt the study that I was looking for, but it is alright. It also mentions supply side bias, but mentions that competition largely removes that. This is likely why you see Russia's media propaganda being so effective and why studies about media and opinion in societies with free speech and media coming up demand.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...-changing-somebody-s-mind-or-yours-is-hard-do

These have to deal with confirmation bias and the near impossibility of someone changing someone else's opinion.

You literally just told me that the media has no influence over political discourse and then linked to a paper that discusses the influence of the media on political discourse. A paper which discusses a theoretical model which the authors discuss the shortcomings of at length. So I take it we agree: the relationship is reciprocal?

And yes, confirmation bias is real and I don't deny its existence. But to leap from the existence of confirmation bias to the rejection of the possibility of the media influencing political discourse is an inference too far as far as I'm concerned.

As for The Establishment; it's quite a good read. I would recommend it but since I already know that you believe that reading things can have no effect on your views, I suppose there's not much point

 

[Moze]

Wait, so how do you propose gauging sentiment? Polls also show Corbyn having serious electability problems.

There is no way. It is especially unpredictable in Corbyn's case because he appeals to a demographic that have not voted before.

polls had brexit basically even, and it was basically even with Leave winning.

2000 people is plenty sufficient for a poll. If all you were going to do was shit on the evidence when you knew it was going to be a poll, then what was the point of asking for it?

As for last election, the apparent issue was underrepresented of certain voters in the polls. This poll is a lot more targeted because it is only surveying labour voters. Could the 1/3rd be wrong? I guess, but the margin for error certainly isnt going to be like 25%

Polls before the referendum were almost all remain and it ranged from a 4-8 point lead. That is not a reliable way to predict outcomes. There is a reason the bookies had leave at 10/1 shortly before the results came in.

2000 is not nearly enough and you know it. You absolutely shouldn't be sourcing that in an objective discussion.

Polls are not reliable in the current climate. An election and a referendum in the past year has proved that.

 

[pigeon]

There is no way. It is especially unpredictable in Corbyn's case because he appeals to a demographic that have not voted before.

I mean, they predictably don't vote. That is actually a measurable pattern. This is the equivalent of saying "if I throw this rock up in the air and will it to stay up there, it's very unpredictable what will happen because I'm appealing to a psychic force that has never worked before."

But okay, sure. Let's assume the future is unknowable.

In that case, why do you have an opinion on this topic at all? All possible choices are equal. What's wrong with the one the experts agree with?

 

[Moze]

I mean, they predictably don't vote. That is actually a measurable pattern. This is the equivalent of saying "if I throw this rock up in the air and will it to stay up there, it's very unpredictable what will happen because I'm appealing to a psychic force that has never worked before."

But okay, sure. Let's assume the future is unknowable.

In that case, why do you have an opinion on this topic at all? All possible choices are equal. What's wrong with the one the experts agree with?

The problem is that the one experts agree with has been wrong for the last general election and the referendum last week. You are asking me to believe something that has been completely wrong twice in a year. It is misleading to believe any polls.

Now exit polls? They are reliable.

 

[kirblar]

Are they allowed to ask directly when polling in the UK? Or do they have to ask indirectly as in "Who do you think will/want to win"

 

[Piecake]

You literally just told me that the media has no influence over political discourse and then linked to a paper that discusses the influence of the media on political discourse. A paper which discusses a theoretical model which the authors discuss the shortcomings of at length. So I take it we agree: the relationship is reciprocal?

And yes, confirmation bias is real and I don't deny its existence. But to leap from the existence of confirmation bias to the rejection of the possibility of the media influencing political discourse is an inference too far as far as I'm concerned.

That paper is a review of existing literature on supply-demand media consumption. It notes that the supply determining bias is largely diminished by competition. Britain has competition in its media

If your opinion is that people choose media based on their values and ideals and that media that conform to those values and ideals to meet the demand of that consumer can then influence the opinions of that person, then we agree.

If your opinion is that the news media in Britain is changing public opinion into becoming more right then we disagree and it would disagree with the literature that I posted.

Again, I never said that it couldn't influence public discourse. I said that it couldn't change values and ideals. That is different. Like I said, media can have influence on consumers who already share the values and ideals of the media. That media isn't going to have any influence on a person who doesnt have those values and ideals.

As for The Establishment; it's quite a good read. I would recommend it but since I already know that you believe that reading things can have no effect on your views, I suppose there's not much point

Do you read to challenge your views? Or do you read according to your interests?

If you read according to your interests then you are basically reading for confirmation bias. You can learn knew things and form new opinions, but those things and opinions are likely going to line up with your basic values and ideals. It doesn't seem like you are changing your opinion on media, so why should you expect mine to? Thinking in that way is another cognitive bias, btw. And yes, I am also guilty of a lot of them

People who think that they aren't heavily influenced by confirmation bias (unless they actively work against it) are usually guilty of another cognitive bias - the one lets you think you are better than everyone else, or at least the average person.

That blurb reeks of conspiratorial nonsense to me, and there is little that I take less seriously than conspiracy.

 

[Yamauchi]

That's amazing. Even Corbyn realizes the EU is a terrible idea.

 

[ThoughtsOfSpeaking]

OK. Some miracle happens. Corbyn somehow convinces the country he is the best man for the job. He is prime minister with a cabinet of his choosing. What changes and do you see him leading the country on both the domestic and world stage?

 

[pigeon]

The problem is that the one experts agree with has been wrong for the last general election and the referendum last week. You are asking me to believe something that has been completely wrong twice in a year. It is misleading to believe any polls.

Now exit polls? They are reliable.

You're missing the point.

Even assuming that you are correct and polls are meaningless (you aren't), that just means that there is no evidence for their position. But there's no evidence for your position either. In fact, you explicitly deny that there could ever be evidence for either position.

In that case there's no particular reason to think what you think. There's no evidence, after all. So why do you hold the position you do, and why do you think the people who disagree with you are wrong? Their case is, at bare minimum, at least as strong as yours. If you acknowledge any validity to polling at all then their case is immediately better. But even without that it's just a coin flip.

Also, exit polls are actually some of the least reliable polls because of their characteristically poor sampling pattern. I am sad that this basic statistical knowledge has been lost.

There are a lot of sources for exit poll error — even more than in an ordinary poll. Here are a few:

■ Differential nonresponse, in which the supporters of one candidate are likelier to participate than those of another candidate. Exit polls have limited means to correct for nonresponse, since they can weight only by visually identifiable characteristics. Hispanic origin, income and education, for instance, are left out.

■ Cluster effects, which happen when the precincts selected aren’t representative of the overall population. This is a very big danger in state exit polls, which include only a small number of precincts. As a result, exit polls have a larger margin of error than an ordinary poll of similar size. These precincts are selected to have the right balance of Democratic and Republican precincts, which isn’t so helpful in a primary.

■ Absentee voters aren’t included at all in states where they represent less than 20 percent or so of the vote.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/28/u...imary-was-not-stolen-from-bernie-sanders.html

 

[Riddick]

That's amazing. Even Corbyn realizes the EU is a terrible idea.

Any actual leftist knows EU is a terrible idea. We didn't need Merkel's pillaging of the European South to realize that EU has neoliberal foundations we already knew it, the last few years just confirmed it in the destructive way possible. The world hasn't seen such inhumane neoliberal policies that border on crime against humanity since IMF in Latin America in the 70s. Why do you think Corbyn wouldn't be aware of that?

 

[travisbickle]

This is the Socialist Workers Party. They are a trotskyite Marxist party. Former members include Andrew Fischer, Corbyn's head of policy. The leadership of Momentum is also strewn with SWP members. John McDonnell has long been associated with the SWP as a sympathiser. The SWP are notorious for attaching themselves to any left wing protest in britain and causing trouble. They have had many insidious incidents attached to them involving rape.

This is a video featuring Corbyn's campaign outside of Parliament. Can you tell me what the banners say? The Socialist Worker is the newspaper of the SWP.

Seamus Milne is a stalinite. He is Corbyn's director of communications and the right hand man of the Leader.

Corbyn's social media is run from a Marxist bookshop in Durham, the operator is also a senior member of Momentum.

Oh no!!! Not a Marxist Bookshop!!

The world's largest international Arts fair, the Venice Bienalle, the whole event in 2013 was based around Karl Marx theories, and had live readings of Karl Marx Capital. labiennale.org/en/art/archive/56th-exhibition/enwezor/

And the Communist Manifesto was the most popular Penguin Classic reprint at release.
communist-manifesto-tops-bestsellers-penguin-little-black-classics

Marx is mainstream, stop with the boogieman rhetoric.

 

[twobear]

That paper is a review of existing literature on supply-demand media consumption. It notes that the supply determining bias is largely diminished by competition. Britain has competition in its media

If your opinion is that people choose media based on their values and ideals and that media that conform to those values and ideals to meet the demand of that consumer can then influence the opinions of that person, then we agree.

If your opinion is that the news media in Britain is changing public opinion into becoming more right then we disagree and it would disagree with the literature that I posted.

Again, I never said that it couldn't influence public discourse. I said that it couldn't change values and ideals. That is different. Like I said, media can have influence on consumers who already share the values and ideals of the media. That media isn't going to have any influence on a person who doesnt have those values and ideals.



Do you read to challenge your views? Or do you read according to your interests?

If you read according to your interests then you are basically reading for confirmation bias. You can learn knew things and form new opinions, but those things and opinions are likely going to line up with your basic values and ideals. It doesn't seem like you are changing your opinion on media, so why should you expect mine to? Thinking in that way is another cognitive bias, btw. And yes, I am also guilty of a lot of them

People who think that they aren't heavily influenced by confirmation bias (unless they actively work against it) are usually guilty of another cognitive bias - the one lets you think you are better than everyone else, or at least the average person.

That blurb reeks of conspiratorial nonsense to me, and there is little that I take less seriously than conspiracy.

I don't want to sound rude here but your post reads like you just took a Psychology 101 course. I know what cognitive biases are.

The papers you linked do not say that supply biases are almost wiped out by competition. They say that the incentives for being biased are lowered if you assume the other features of the theoretical model that they study. There can be 101 reasons why a theoretical model doesn't map with reality.

And no, The Establishment is not 'conspiracy theory'. You might disagree with the content, but that doesn't make it 'conspiracy theory'. It's a history of how the political status-quo in the UK became so dominated by the right-wing.

In any case, until anybody in this thread posts something resembling a plausible post-Corbyn plan I'm done posting in it. I've asked like four times what people think it would look like and none of you have a clue. If you want to see why the Labour party can't get elected, you might want to start there.

 

[Tanis]

Why is Labour bothering with a no confidence motion and not just moving straight to a leadership challenge? I'm not really seeing the value in getting him to resign vs just voting a new leader in.

 

[Moze]

You're missing the point.

Even assuming that you are correct and polls are meaningless (you aren't), that just means that there is no evidence for their position. But there's no evidence for your position either. In fact, you explicitly deny that there could ever be evidence for either position.

In that case there's no particular reason to think what you think. There's no evidence, after all. So why do you hold the position you do, and why do you think the people who disagree with you are wrong? Their case is, at bare minimum, at least as strong as yours. If you acknowledge any validity to polling at all then their case is immediately better. But even without that it's just a coin flip.

Also, exit polls are actually some of the least reliable polls because of their characteristically poor sampling pattern. I am sad that this basic statistical knowledge has been lost.



http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/28/u...imary-was-not-stolen-from-bernie-sanders.html

I actually didn't invalidate polls completely. I said that it would be foolish to trust political polls in the current climate. I am basing that off of the last general election and the referendum just gone. Polls got it wrong both times. To trust them again in the next election would be foolish wouldn't it? Avoid putting any weight behind political polls before a general election.

Exit polls are most definitely more reliable in the UK during general elections. I agree that they are not reliable for other purposes (that is why there was no exit poll last week). Exit polls during UK general elections almost always get it right. I believe the last time one got it wrong was 1992?

 

[darkace]

The problem is that the one experts agree with has been wrong for the last general election and the referendum last week. You are asking me to believe something that has been completely wrong twice in a year. It is misleading to believe any polls.

Now exit polls? They are reliable.

Exit polls are the least reliable polls available.

 

[Uzzy]

Why is Labour bothering with a no confidence motion and not just moving straight to a leadership challenge? I'm not really seeing the value in getting him to resign vs just voting a new leader in.

Because they know he'd be on the ballot for any new leadership election, and win easily. If they pressure him to resign, however, through no confidence motions and resignations, then he won't be on the ballot.

 

[ElNarez]

Why is Labour bothering with a no confidence motion and not just moving straight to a leadership challenge? I'm not really seeing the value in getting him to resign vs just voting a new leader in.

Because they literally have no plan beyond "Corbyn out", and no one that could beat Corbyn in a leadership challenge. The most likely candidate they have so far is Angela Eagle, and she was fourth in the election for Deputy Leader, which is not an encouraging sign.

All they can do is make a huge spectacle of themselves, and being dicks to such an extent that Corbyn would want to call it quits. Which, so far, is not happening, because he knows he has the support of the membership and of the unions.

 

[JonathanEx]

Hey the anti-Semitism in Labour report is out today.

I do also wonder what it'll reflect on the leadership who didn't want to suspend Ken Hitler Livingstone.

 

[liquidtmd]

Corbyn holding on like Johnny Five at the end of Short Circuit 2

No disassemble!

 

[Rich!]

That's irrelevant unless you predicted how much of a majority it was.

I predicted it accurately.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1206724

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Atr8Mb1up4xLLJXJT1OqPgnqBEF_4iBz0Dbvy9mDWr0/edit#gid=0

Rich! 48% Remain | 52% Leave

 

[daviyoung]

I admire Corbyn's tenacity and stoicism but he's playing the long game in the same way that a rock does.

Let us into that beautiful Corbynesque mind

 

[Goodlife]

This is the kind of bias shit from the BBC that Corbyn has to put up with

"This evening Jeremy Corbyn made a wonderful speech, which lasted about ten minutes, attacking austerity and demanding social justice. During the speech, there was one solitary heckle. The BBC news at ten didn't broadcast a word of the speech, just the heckler. It's difficult not to feel that the BBC is horribly biased. Here's the speech in full, just in case you're interested.

https://youtu.be/bvK08ZlnO-c"

 

[jakonovski]

I don't think there's any other choice but to split into two parties at this point. Seriously, there's enough support for Corbyn and anti-Corbyn both that the UK will be back in the EU before the civil war ends.

 

[MisterFalcon]

Why is Labour bothering with a no confidence motion and not just moving straight to a leadership challenge? I'm not really seeing the value in getting him to resign vs just voting a new leader in.

If it goes to a Labour membership vote all those new 3-pound members will just vote for Corbyn again.

 

[JonathanEx]

This is the kind of bias shit from the BBC that Corbyn has to put up with

"This evening Jeremy Corbyn made a wonderful speech, which lasted about ten minutes, attacking austerity and demanding social justice. During the speech, there was one solitary heckle. The BBC news at ten didn't broadcast a word of the speech, just the heckler. It's difficult not to feel that the BBC is horribly biased. Here's the speech in full, just in case you're interested.

https://youtu.be/bvK08ZlnO-c"

While I don't think the BBC have given him the best ride, what else in the speech was new? It was his usual stump speech, nothing entirely newsworthy about that - him having to reaffirm his views on Europe and what to do now after the heckler is much more interesting.

 

[Goodlife]

While I don't think the BBC have given him the best ride, what else in the speech was new? It was his usual stump speech, nothing entirely newsworthy about that - him having to reaffirm his views on Europe and what to do now after the heckler is much more interesting.

Fair point

 

[phisheep]

If it goes to a Labour membership vote all those new 3-pound members will just vote for Corbyn again.

This one won't.

I voted for Corbyn specifically because I believed Labour needed to rediscover its soul, its policies and its will to win, and to face up to its own internal divisions; that none of the other candidates displayed any of that at all; and that Corbyn probably wasn't the answer either but was possibly the route to an answer. In other words I was prodding towards a battle royal for the soul of the party, which is what we now have.

Corbyn's role in this is now over. He won't get my vote this time round.

 

[Goodlife]

This one won't.

I voted for Corbyn specifically because I believed Labour needed to rediscover its soul, its policies and its will to win, and to face up to its own internal divisions; that none of the other candidates displayed any of that at all; and that Corbyn probably wasn't the answer either but was possibly the route to an answer. In other words I was prodding towards a battle royal for the soul of the party, which is what we now have.

Corbyn's role in this is now over. He won't get my vote this time round.

So you're going to vote for Eagle?

 

[phisheep]

So you're going to vote for Eagle?

Depends who stands, and I'll need to do a bit of research. I'll either vote for a challenger, or abstain and let things play out. Not Corbyn though, not unless I want the Labour party to implode, which I don't.

 

[Mr. Sam]

This one won't.

I voted for Corbyn specifically because I believed Labour needed to rediscover its soul, its policies and its will to win, and to face up to its own internal divisions; that none of the other candidates displayed any of that at all; and that Corbyn probably wasn't the answer either but was possibly the route to an answer. In other words I was prodding towards a battle royal for the soul of the party, which is what we now have.

Corbyn's role in this is now over. He won't get my vote this time round.

I'm trying to phrase this without being rude but - seeing as far as I'm aware, you voted Conservative in the last general election - could this not be seen as sabotage, or at least meddling in a party in which you've no interest?

If Corbyn had resigned with dignity following the referendum and endorsed a successor in an attempt to unite the party, I would have said you'd played a blinder.

 

[phisheep]

I'm trying to phrase this without being rude but - seeing as far as I'm aware, you voted Conservative in the last general election - could this not be seen as sabotage, or at least meddling in a party in which you've no interest?

I did, and it could be. But I don't consider it sabotage, or a party in which I have no interest. My family has long Labour roots (on my father's side, it's the other way on my mother's side), my brothers are active members, I'm from the South Wales valleys, and I believe that the country needs a strong united government and opposition to function properly. Besides, I always cast my vote on anything that I am able to.

If Corbyn had resigned with dignity following the referendum and endorsed a successor in an attempt to unite the party, I would have said you'd played a blinder.

So would I, unfortunately it looks like it will be a bit messier than that!

 

[Sir_Crocodile]

Has Jarvis gotten cold feet again? Haven't heard anything past that initial rumour he was canvassing.

 

[BadHand]

Hey the anti-Semitism in Labour report is out today.

I do also wonder what it'll reflect on the leadership who didn't want to suspend Ken Hitler Livingstone.

What's your reasoning for calling Ken "Hitler"?

 

[JonathanEx]

What's your reasoning for calling Ken "Hitler"?

Oh it's just because he can't got a sentence without mentioning Hitler recently. That's all, I'm not calling him Hitler. Just being silly more than anything.

 

[1871]

And yes I have read Marx, thoroughly. I like Alienation, I'll give him that.

I think you just won the "pretentious twat" post of the day.

That's not the title of a book, not even an article.

It's a concept. The estrangement a worker has regarding the product of his work not being his (and having no control over the process of production). My wording might suck, english is not my native language and i don't feel like looking up a precise philosophical notion.

"thoroughly", lol.

As for what you know of the SWP, your understanding of politics is akin to tabloids. "one is seen with another", etc.

I find it fascinating that people care so much about the leadership, and so little about the membership. And when I say people, I guess I mean American liberals who post on neogaf.

 

[BadHand]

Oh it's just because he can't got a sentence without mentioning Hitler recently. That's all, I'm not calling him Hitler. Just being silly more than anything.

Ah, OK. I suppose that has been a media focus recently.