If they were allowed to hear them without the accompanying deeply negative commentary from just about every media outlet and those with vested interests.
As things stand, most people who take only a casual interest in politics would think Corbyn was a communist IRA man who advocates lynching the royal family!
Of course, if ordinary voters were actually to hear Labours unadulterated messages about going after the tax cheats, closing the obscene gap between the wealthiest and the rest, bringing in a real living wage, cutting down on interfering in the affairs of sovereign states, seriously investing in infrastructure, job creation, housing, education and the NHS people might actually vote for it in huge numbers! And, of course, those at the very top - the 1%, if you like, wouldn't want that one little bit.
I'm sure the electorate can make up their mind whether they like Corbyn's ideas or not, just by watching him talk on the TV.
I doubt they think " I'll just wait til the BBC or Sky tell me what to think before I make up my mind " <D'oh>
I'm sure the electorate can make up their mind whether they like Corbyn's ideas or not, just by watching him talk on the TV.
I doubt they think " I'll just wait til the BBC or Sky tell me what to think before I make up my mind " <D'oh>
You'd like to think so but many 'non political' people (probably a big majority in the UK) outside of bubbles like this message-board are, in my experience, heavily influenced by how an article or news story is prefixed.
You'd like to think so but many 'non political' people (probably a big majority in the UK) outside of bubbles like this message-board are, in my experience, heavily influenced by how an article or news story is prefixed.
And by "non political" we presume you mean "everyone who does not agree with me", as they must be "wrong" they must there be non-political.
If they were political they would think just like you.
You'd like to think so but many 'non political' people (probably a big majority in the UK) outside of bubbles like this message-board are, in my experience, heavily influenced by how an article or news story is prefixed.
That's not what I've noticed when members of the general public are asked on the TV or radio for their opinions.
Also when the Conservatives were in coalition with the Lib Dems, the media was full of critical articles about them. The Tories & LibDems were criticised by the BBC & Sky over some of their policies & it didn't seem to stop the Tories gaining power at the last election.
Tories & Lib Dem MPs were regularly grilled by interviewers, or didn't you notice ?
The Tories were picked to pieces even more when they won over all power.
If Jeremy Corbyn's policies are criticised more, perhaps it's because some of them are just so hard left, journalist are just incredulous he should even suggest them !
Only 5 of the 28 NATO member states fulfil their commitment to spending on defence.
But do they miss it to the tune of say...cancelling a Trident Nuclear submarine program and spending the money on non defence related items?
I'm not even sure we meet the target on an annual basis. I seem to recall Osborne being accused of a bit of accountancy jiggery pokery with how he was spreading the cost of those aircraft carriers that are being built in order to save a few quid here and there.
Has it always been the case that NATO members aren't living up to their commitments or is it a recent phenomenon due in part to some members struggling more than others to get over the financial crash?
That's not what I've noticed when members of the general public are asked on the TV or radio for their opinions.
Also when the Conservatives were in coalition with the Lib Dems, the media was full of critical articles about them. The Tories & LibDems were criticised by the BBC & Sky over some of their policies & it didn't seem to stop the Tories gaining power at the last election.
Tories & Lib Dem MPs were regularly grilled by interviewers, or didn't you notice ?
The Tories were picked to pieces even more when they won over all power.
If Jeremy Corbyn's policies are criticised more, perhaps it's because some of them are just so hard left, journalist are just incredulous he should even suggest them !
Their most inexcusable policies on welfare cuts were hardly if ever mentioned.
Their factual misrepresentations and errors on welfare were hardly if ever mentioned.
While they were taken to task on welfare policies that were easy to defend and popular with the public.
The media willingly follow the Conservative's narrative.
Their most inexcusable policies on welfare cuts were hardly if ever mentioned.
Their factual misrepresentations and errors on welfare were hardly if ever mentioned.
While they were taken to task on welfare policies that were easy to defend and popular with the public.
The media willingly follow the Conservative's narrative.
Untrue. They were challenged on politics shows all the time.
If they were allowed to hear them without the accompanying deeply negative commentary from just about every media outlet and those with vested interests.
As things stand, most people who take only a casual interest in politics would think Corbyn was a communist IRA man who advocates lynching the royal family!
Of course, if ordinary voters were actually to hear Labours unadulterated messages about going after the tax cheats, closing the obscene gap between the wealthiest and the rest, bringing in a real living wage, cutting down on interfering in the affairs of sovereign states, seriously investing in infrastructure, job creation, housing, education and the NHS people might actually vote for it in huge numbers! And, of course, those at the very top - the 1%, if you like, wouldn't want that one little bit.
Yep, the same condescending delusional attitude that thought the Leave voters were "lied to"
If the UK's nuclear deterrent has worked for 70+ years then it worked when the UK had no nuclear weapons:)
Doesn't really work, does it. Nuclear deterence only worrks if it is detering other nations nuclear potential. Previously, we carried out the same type of detereence in naval terms.
Untrue. They were challenged on politics shows all the time.
I never saw them challenged on their misrepresentation and factual errors on DLA claimant numbers and the reasons for the increase. They were allowed to getaway with creating the narrative it was a benefit out of control.
I have never seen them challenged on their misrepresentation of ESA work related activity group. They were allowed to get away with creating the narrative they are capable of working.
I have never seen them challenged on their misrepresentation of disabled people being exempt from the benefit freeze. When the largest component the personal allowance is not.
Many of the disability benefit changes they have made are indefensible. Cuts to benefits, premiums, grants, funds that are specifically for the most severely disabled adults. Cuts to benefits, grants and funding to disabled children and young adults. The only one I recall being challenged was the independent living fund and I do not recall any minister being taken to task over it on TV. Some changes to pip they were challenged on but only after Ian Duncan Smith resigned and highlighted them as indefensible.
Government ministers could be presented with a litany of indefensible cuts they have made. Instead the media focused on the benefit cap and bedroom tax that are easy to defend.
Doesn't really work, does it. Nuclear deterence only worrks if it is detering other nations nuclear potential. Previously, we carried out the same type of detereence in naval terms.
During the cold war the purpose of the nuclear deterrent was to deter Soviet Union invasion by overwhelming conventional forces.
Their most inexcusable policies on welfare cuts were hardly if ever mentioned.
Their factual misrepresentations and errors on welfare were hardly if ever mentioned.
While they were taken to task on welfare policies that were easy to defend and popular with the public.
The media willingly follow the Conservative's narrative.
You over estimate the importance of welfare. There are lots and lots of people out there working their butts off not claiming any welfare. Labour just going on and on and on about welfare has turned the aspirational off. They are seen by many as the party of the immigrant and/or benefit claimant.
You over estimate the importance of welfare. There are lots and lots of people out there working their butts off not claiming any welfare. Labour just going on and on and on about welfare has turned the aspirational off. They are seen by many as the party of the immigrant and/or benefit claimant.
The media failed to hold the government to account for numerous cuts to the most severely disabled adults, and numerous cuts to disabled children and young people. Maybe the public would not have cared, maybe they would have. We will never know because the media never brought the cuts to the public's attention and never held the government to account to force the government to try to justify the indefensible.
If they were allowed to hear them without the accompanying deeply negative commentary from just about every media outlet and those with vested interests.
As things stand, most people who take only a casual interest in politics would think Corbyn was a communist IRA man who advocates lynching the royal family!
Of course, if ordinary voters were actually to hear Labours unadulterated messages about going after the tax cheats, closing the obscene gap between the wealthiest and the rest, bringing in a real living wage, cutting down on interfering in the affairs of sovereign states, seriously investing in infrastructure, job creation, housing, education and the NHS people might actually vote for it in huge numbers! And, of course, those at the very top - the 1%, if you like, wouldn't want that one little bit.
Only the most gullible and uninformed voters, would believe any of it . Its all based on the lie that there's alternative politics - an alternative to realistic politics. Its rather like believing in alternative gravity, alternative medicine, or alternative chemistry. Its a ridiculous idea that depends on Corbyn having God like wisdom - which only the most obsessed Momentum supporter could believe, of a man with two abysmal A levels to his name. If only every Labour leader beforehand , and every world leader , had the wisdom of the Great Corbyn - imagine how much more successful they would have been.
And thats because the lie about politics is based on an economic lie - that 2 and 2 don't make 4, and state expenditure and income don't have to be within similar bounds. Corbyn's great plan assumes that he can just print 500 billion - and spend it on what he wants, with no downside. It assumes the rest of the planet would just hand over resources for us to spend, and our skilled people would willingly work to earn less and pay more benefits to the idle . Its the same logic as a child printing pff money on a photocopier, and taking it along to the toy shop to spend. As the entire Labour economic team, now exiled to the back benches, have pointed out, its economic illiteracy, and would destroy the economy.
But thats essentially all thats left of Corbyn's initial 2015 plan - to find hundreds of billions to splash around . That survived weeks- as even McDonnell had to admit that there was little hope of getting more tax back than Miliband or Osborne had planned, and scrapping subsidies for business, would just create mass unemployment. Corbyn is now just left with the fantastic idea of just printing 500 billion, and spending that, to bribe as many voters as he can. Essentially , thats only going to be believed by people who never learnt from their parents that resources are finite , or believe that Corbyn has magic powers. It won't sell , because most voters understand a budget , realise that borrowing comes with a price, don't want to see inflation shoot up, rely on others to employ them, and don't want to pay higher taxes to see Corbyn waste it.
I dunno if rail nationalisation would survive scrutiny. As soon as people realised that one Union could bring the whole country's railways to a standstill the support would vanish.
There's an interesting question of what would happen under a Corbyn government if rail were nationalised. McDonnell thinks Labour should support every strike. Does that meant the rail unions could demand whatever they wanted, and the government would just give it to them?
Nationalised rail seems appealing now because people think it would be run in the interests of the public, rather than in the interests of private companies. But what if the railways are run in the interests of the unions instead?
Only the most gullible and uninformed voters, would believe any of it . Its all based on the lie that there's alternative politics - an alternative to realistic politics. Its rather like believing in alternative gravity, alternative medicine, or alternative chemistry. Its a ridiculous idea that depends on Corbyn having God like wisdom - which only the most obsessed Momentum supporter could believe, of a man with two abysmal A levels to his name. If only every Labour leader beforehand , and every world leader , had the wisdom of the Great Corbyn - imagine how much more successful they would have been.
And thats because the lie about politics is based on an economic lie - that 2 and 2 don't make 4, and state expenditure and income don't have to be within similar bounds. Corbyn's great plan assumes that he can just print 500 billion - and spend it on what he wants, with no downside. It assumes the rest of the planet would just hand over resources for us to spend, and our skilled people would willingly work to earn less and pay more benefits to the idle . Its the same logic as a child printing pff money on a photocopier, and taking it along to the toy shop to spend. As the entire Labour economic team, now exiled to the back benches, have pointed out, its economic illiteracy, and would destroy the economy.
But thats essentially all thats left of Corbyn's initial 2015 plan - to find hundreds of billions to splash around . That survived weeks- as even McDonnell had to admit that there was little hope of getting more tax back than Miliband or Osborne had planned, and scrapping subsidies for business, would just create mass unemployment. Corbyn is now just left with the fantastic idea of just printing 500 billion, and spending that, to bribe as many voters as he can. Essentially , thats only going to be believed by people who never learnt from their parents that resources are finite , or believe that Corbyn has magic powers. It won't sell , because most voters understand a budget , realise that borrowing comes with a price, don't want to see inflation shoot up, rely on others to employ them, and don't want to pay higher taxes to see Corbyn waste it.
There's an interesting question of what would happen under a Corbyn government if rail were nationalised. McDonnell thinks Labour should support every strike. Does that meant the rail unions could demand whatever they wanted, and the government would just give it to them?
Nationalised rail seems appealing now because people think it would be run in the interests of the public, rather than in the interests of private companies. But what if the railways are run in the interests of the unions instead?
There's an interesting question of what would happen under a Corbyn government if rail were nationalised. McDonnell thinks Labour should support every strike. Does that meant the rail unions could demand whatever they wanted, and the government would just give it to them?
Nationalised rail seems appealing now because people think it would be run in the interests of the public, rather than in the interests of private companies. But what if the railways are run in the interests of the unions instead?
There is a difference between supporting strikes against someone else's policies you oppose and supporting strikes against policies you not only agree with but are your policies you are attempting to implement.
There's an interesting question of what would happen under a Corbyn government if rail were nationalised. McDonnell thinks Labour should support every strike. Does that meant the rail unions could demand whatever they wanted, and the government would just give it to them?
Nationalised rail seems appealing now because people think it would be run in the interests of the public, rather than in the interests of private companies. But what if the railways are run in the interests of the unions instead?
That is exactly the problem. I for one do not for a second trust Corbyn and McD to stand up to the unions in the interests of the country, their history tells us all we need to know. The unions have scuppered any chance of re-nationalisation of the railways. Of course, it was partly because of the stroppy unions that rail was privatised in the first place.
There is a difference between supporting strikes against someone else's policies you oppose and supporting strikes against policies you not only agree with but are your policies you are attempting to implement.
In that case, it seems likely that Corbyn would simply give in to the unions demands for huge pay increases - over 30% is what they demanded in the past, they destroyed Callaghans government.
The media failed to hold the government to account for numerous cuts to the most severely disabled adults, and numerous cuts to disabled children and young people. Maybe the public would not have cared, maybe they would have. We will never know because the media never brought the cuts to the public's attention and never held the government to account to force the government to try to justify the indefensible.
Comments
Cool. Keep sucking up the austerity and bonkers foreign policies.
I'm sure the electorate can make up their mind whether they like Corbyn's ideas or not, just by watching him talk on the TV.
I doubt they think " I'll just wait til the BBC or Sky tell me what to think before I make up my mind " <D'oh>
Is austerity still a thing?
Austerity! Austerity! Austerity!
It's about time this had another public outing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPgS7p40ERg
You'd like to think so but many 'non political' people (probably a big majority in the UK) outside of bubbles like this message-board are, in my experience, heavily influenced by how an article or news story is prefixed.
And by "non political" we presume you mean "everyone who does not agree with me", as they must be "wrong" they must there be non-political.
If they were political they would think just like you.
Are you Emily Thornberry by any chance ???
That's not what I've noticed when members of the general public are asked on the TV or radio for their opinions.
Also when the Conservatives were in coalition with the Lib Dems, the media was full of critical articles about them. The Tories & LibDems were criticised by the BBC & Sky over some of their policies & it didn't seem to stop the Tories gaining power at the last election.
Tories & Lib Dem MPs were regularly grilled by interviewers, or didn't you notice ?
The Tories were picked to pieces even more when they won over all power.
If Jeremy Corbyn's policies are criticised more, perhaps it's because some of them are just so hard left, journalist are just incredulous he should even suggest them !
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=9281
But do they miss it to the tune of say...cancelling a Trident Nuclear submarine program and spending the money on non defence related items?
I'm not even sure we meet the target on an annual basis. I seem to recall Osborne being accused of a bit of accountancy jiggery pokery with how he was spreading the cost of those aircraft carriers that are being built in order to save a few quid here and there.
Has it always been the case that NATO members aren't living up to their commitments or is it a recent phenomenon due in part to some members struggling more than others to get over the financial crash?
Their factual misrepresentations and errors on welfare were hardly if ever mentioned.
While they were taken to task on welfare policies that were easy to defend and popular with the public.
The media willingly follow the Conservative's narrative.
Untrue. They were challenged on politics shows all the time.
Yep, the same condescending delusional attitude that thought the Leave voters were "lied to"
Prepare for the wilderness.
Doesn't really work, does it. Nuclear deterence only worrks if it is detering other nations nuclear potential. Previously, we carried out the same type of detereence in naval terms.
I have never seen them challenged on their misrepresentation of ESA work related activity group. They were allowed to get away with creating the narrative they are capable of working.
I have never seen them challenged on their misrepresentation of disabled people being exempt from the benefit freeze. When the largest component the personal allowance is not.
Many of the disability benefit changes they have made are indefensible. Cuts to benefits, premiums, grants, funds that are specifically for the most severely disabled adults. Cuts to benefits, grants and funding to disabled children and young adults. The only one I recall being challenged was the independent living fund and I do not recall any minister being taken to task over it on TV. Some changes to pip they were challenged on but only after Ian Duncan Smith resigned and highlighted them as indefensible.
Government ministers could be presented with a litany of indefensible cuts they have made. Instead the media focused on the benefit cap and bedroom tax that are easy to defend.
You over estimate the importance of welfare. There are lots and lots of people out there working their butts off not claiming any welfare. Labour just going on and on and on about welfare has turned the aspirational off. They are seen by many as the party of the immigrant and/or benefit claimant.
Only the most gullible and uninformed voters, would believe any of it . Its all based on the lie that there's alternative politics - an alternative to realistic politics. Its rather like believing in alternative gravity, alternative medicine, or alternative chemistry. Its a ridiculous idea that depends on Corbyn having God like wisdom - which only the most obsessed Momentum supporter could believe, of a man with two abysmal A levels to his name. If only every Labour leader beforehand , and every world leader , had the wisdom of the Great Corbyn - imagine how much more successful they would have been.
And thats because the lie about politics is based on an economic lie - that 2 and 2 don't make 4, and state expenditure and income don't have to be within similar bounds. Corbyn's great plan assumes that he can just print 500 billion - and spend it on what he wants, with no downside. It assumes the rest of the planet would just hand over resources for us to spend, and our skilled people would willingly work to earn less and pay more benefits to the idle . Its the same logic as a child printing pff money on a photocopier, and taking it along to the toy shop to spend. As the entire Labour economic team, now exiled to the back benches, have pointed out, its economic illiteracy, and would destroy the economy.
But thats essentially all thats left of Corbyn's initial 2015 plan - to find hundreds of billions to splash around . That survived weeks- as even McDonnell had to admit that there was little hope of getting more tax back than Miliband or Osborne had planned, and scrapping subsidies for business, would just create mass unemployment. Corbyn is now just left with the fantastic idea of just printing 500 billion, and spending that, to bribe as many voters as he can. Essentially , thats only going to be believed by people who never learnt from their parents that resources are finite , or believe that Corbyn has magic powers. It won't sell , because most voters understand a budget , realise that borrowing comes with a price, don't want to see inflation shoot up, rely on others to employ them, and don't want to pay higher taxes to see Corbyn waste it.
There's an interesting question of what would happen under a Corbyn government if rail were nationalised. McDonnell thinks Labour should support every strike. Does that meant the rail unions could demand whatever they wanted, and the government would just give it to them?
Nationalised rail seems appealing now because people think it would be run in the interests of the public, rather than in the interests of private companies. But what if the railways are run in the interests of the unions instead?
Beautifully put
Spot on
That is exactly the problem. I for one do not for a second trust Corbyn and McD to stand up to the unions in the interests of the country, their history tells us all we need to know. The unions have scuppered any chance of re-nationalisation of the railways. Of course, it was partly because of the stroppy unions that rail was privatised in the first place.
In that case, it seems likely that Corbyn would simply give in to the unions demands for huge pay increases - over 30% is what they demanded in the past, they destroyed Callaghans government.
That is true.