UK Election June 08

[holzz]

tories hate the poor, but want caring support and free school meals. and higher pensions. lol.

[Jericho]

I can't work out if social media is decisive in winning marginal seats, or whether or not elections are won and lost because of local factors, personality issues, or policies, or a combination of all three.

Like i say, it's interesting to watch. Twitter especially.
People have had enough of mainstream media, and they're reporting their own news.

[broncofan]

Twitter is definitely interesting to follow, but the move away from what's called mainstream media is better for speed than accuracy.

Twitter is great for group think, for confirmation bias, and sources that are unaccountable and cynical in their methods. It is often attractive to people who are disillusioned and want an alternative source to tell them something counter-intuitive or that makes them feel better. Sometimes there's a useful take, or a breaking story, but often times it's cranks who focus in on a very small segment of facts and block out everything else. As a result, it has been a boon for promoters of conspiracy theories. 140 characters per tweet is too short for a caveat and therefore too short for a balanced or thoughtful view but great for zingers.

On the other hand, it can be useful if you follow people who are accountable for their views (they work for a company that has an editorial board and are subject to defamation laws and dismissal if they spout bullshit).

[Stavros]

Like i say, it's interesting to watch. Twitter especially.
People have had enough of mainstream media, and they're reporting their own news.

What is interesting about this point, is that if we accept the media in general is biased against Corbyn in particular, and I think they are, and if a lot of young people -say, under the age of 30- use different sources for their news, will this affect the outcome of the election? According to the Independent, younger voters could be the key to Labour holding on to marginal seats and denying May a huge majority in the Commons. It is too late now for any more to register, so now the issue is, will they turn out to vote?
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...-a7744296.html

[peejaye]

Twitter is definitely interesting to follow, but the move away from what's called mainstream media is better for speed than accuracy.

Twitter is great for group think, for confirmation bias, and sources that are unaccountable and cynical in their methods. It is often attractive to people who are disillusioned and want an alternative source to tell them something counter-intuitive or that makes them feel better. Sometimes there's a useful take, or a breaking story, but often times it's cranks who focus in on a very small segment of facts and block out everything else. As a result, it has been a boon for promoters of conspiracy theories. 140 characters per tweet is too short for a caveat and therefore too short for a balanced or thoughtful view but great for zingers.

On the other hand, it can be useful if you follow people who are accountable for their views (they work for a company that has an editorial board and are subject to defamation laws and dismissal if they spout bullshit).

I really don't understand this post? You're clearly are not a follower of Twitter? It's a site for people to express their own views! That's what we are allowed to do in this country! 140 characters per tweet is irrelevant because a lot of tweets have a link to click on to the bigger story. As for disillusioned cranks; you have to ask yourself what they are disillusioned with? You sound like a very influential part of "The Establishment"?

[Jericho]

What is interesting about this point, is that if we accept the media in general is biased against Corbyn in particular, and I think they are, and if a lot of young people -say, under the age of 30- use different sources for their news, will this affect the outcome of the election? According to the Independent, younger voters could be the key to Labour holding on to marginal seats and denying May a huge majority in the Commons. It is too late now for any more to register, so now the issue is, will they turn out to vote?
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...-a7744296.html

The mainstream media bias against Corbyn (in particular) and the Labour Party, may have worked in their favour a little. Irking our British sense of fair play (If such a thing exists)?
On Twitter, there's almost a 'cult' of Jeremy Corbyn. Sorta, fuck you then, don't report it. We'll do it..."We Are His Media".
And you've got to give Labour props. They've used it to *really* go after the young voter.

Tho, like you say, can they be arsed to go and vote.
I dunno.

[Stavros]

The mainstream media bias against Corbyn (in particular) and the Labour Party, may have worked in their favour a little. Irking our British sense of fair play (If such a thing exists)?
On Twitter, there's almost a 'cult' of Jeremy Corbyn. Sorta, fuck you then, don't report it. We'll do it..."We Are His Media".
And you've got to give Labour props. They've used it to *really* go after the young voter.

Tho, like you say, can they be arsed to go and vote.
I dunno.

I had a debate with Prospero some years ago about the effectiveness of negative media campaigns on leading politicians, mostly the hysterical banner headlines in the Mail, Sun, Express and Mirror, and also the bias of the Telegraph, Times and Guardian, it was a primary feature of the attacks on Labour when Neil Kinnock was leader.

If over a period of more than a year there is a drip-drip of nasty headlines, in Corbyn's case add the words IRA, anti-Semitism, immigration and a negative tone is infiltrated into reports on Corbyn and Labour and it creates suspicion, if only because a lot of people don't instantly think beyond the headline. Where in the past The Times had journalists who reported the news and then investigated the deeper background to it, investigative journalism has been a casualty of the Murdoch machine which either creates news rather than reporting it, or relies on the government, the police, the military, etc for news without bothering to check to see if it is true. The vilification by The Sun of Winston Silcott was one example, Hillsborough a stunning follow up.

Unfortunately for him, Corbyn is not a smooth performer in the media and has trouble explaining his invitation to Gerry Adams to speak in the Commons (even though the Government had its own contacts with Sinn Fein at the time), or struggling to separate Israel from Zionism and Palestinian rights, so he doesn't help his own cause, but those are also two issues on which there is little to be gained in the UK, too many people recall the worst aspects of the armed struggle for a United Ireland, though it may only be people of my age who remember Palestinians hi-jacking aeroplanes and murdering Israeli athletes. Sometimes people get a bad press because they deserve to, though Labour is hardly a special case compared to the other parties.

It would also help if Labour's front bench representatives spoke with one voice rather than Emily Thornberry claiming Labour is still reviewing the renewal of Trident when the shadow Defence Secretary slaps her down by saying it is not and anyway its not her job to comment on it -etc etc. It looks bad, and one can compare that to Phillip Hammond's budget policy to increase National Insurance contributions by the self-employed, which he had to reverse a week later, even though Theresa May sat in the same Cabinet office when Hammond told them what was in the budget. And even in recent weeks when there is speculation about his future as Chancellor, it doesn't generate 'Tories in crisis' headlines. It may that the power of the 'mainstream media' in the UK is not as strong as once it was, but I can't say for sure.

Part of the problem is also the simple fact that a few obscure details aside, on Brexit it is a choice between Blue Labour and the Red Tories. Neither of them have staked out a position that is anything other than a fairy tale from where I am sitting. Just today Jay Rayner has an extensive article on the food industry in the UK, something he knows a lot about, with the simple fact that seasonal migrant labour is crucial to our food production but neither party has a coherent policy on it -as Tim Lang, Professor of Food Policy at the City University put it
Basically, if on March 31, 2019, migrant labour is not sorted the food system is fucked.” And then he says, “I hope those who voted Brexit and who still want to eat British are prepared to go to Lincolnshire in winter to pick vegetables.” Or as Wright [Ian Wright of the Food and Drink Federation] puts it, “Food is at the heart of national security. If you can’t feed a country you haven’t got a country.”
https://www.theguardian.com/business...rant-labour-eu

[broncofan]

I really don't understand this post? You're clearly are not a follower of Twitter? It's a site for people to express their own views! That's what we are allowed to do in this country! 140 characters per tweet is irrelevant because a lot of tweets have a link to click on to the bigger story. As for disillusioned cranks; you have to ask yourself what they are disillusioned with? You sound like a very influential part of "The Establishment"?

You have a right to express a view, but when you do so, is it news? I think twitter is a great news aggregator and I use it to follow people who publish useful articles. But here (in the U.S.) you will have 200,000 people following some guy who calls himself the maestro or something and makes all sorts of outlandish claims...and the claims never come true and the goalposts keep shifting.

I can't help but notice similarities between what you guys are saying and what a lot of Trump supporters say. So one of the things the media should be reporting is Corbyn's crowds? I guess I'm just not as convinced that Corbyn has been so unfairly treated and when I've encountered pockets of Corbyn supporters on twitter they do seem a bit cultish, but not in a good way.

I can't help it if that's what I think....I'm also just expressing a viewpoint.

[broncofan]

You sound like a very influential part of "The Establishment"?

No, I just have been all over that site and find that the information that turns out to be correct is often from a major outlet, or is posted in a niche blog by someone who is knowledgeable about some matter. I didn't mean to post anything too contrary, just that it's easy to use social media to spin.

Maybe your conclusion is that the media is unfair to Corbyn. When we lost, we found that too, but if things don't go well I'm not sure that can be your only take away. There has to something about the message, the messenger, the tactics...anyhow, that's what I've been told when my candidate loses. Often we will say, "well no matter how many flaws he/she has, she's still superior to the right wing jerk." But then you will find when the candidate and the message are perfectly tuned, you will have enough support to win.

[Jericho]

So one of the things the media should be reporting is Corbyn's crowds? I guess I'm just not as convinced that Corbyn has been so unfairly treated and when I've encountered pockets of Corbyn supporters on twitter they do seem a bit cultish, but not in a good way.

When newspapers/headlines are saying, "Mrs May today met crowds in Scotland, and meanwhile, Jeremy Corbyn met a few labour supporters in Clacton (or wherever)", and the truth is, May met a few party faithful in a barn (that was booked as a child's party), and the 'few' labour supports were a packed out/streets closed, shopping precinct, then damn right the newspapers should be 'reporting' on those crowds.

As Stavros mentioned above, this isn't the first time (I personally believe Neil Kinnock was the best prime minister this country never had....but Welsh and Ginger, they might as well have painted a bullseye on his back)!

This time (maybe for the 1st time), MSM can't get way with that shit, people are calling them out on it.

Re the Corbynistas, I'm not one, but I don't blame them/ They're up against it, they've got an uphill struggle. I do know they've certainly opened up my eyes to Corbyn. (unlike some, in the past, my reasons for disliking him were personal rather than idealogical).
And it rankles to have my opinions changed, but I see a man I can follow, a leader.

But then you will find when the candidate and the message are perfectly tuned, you will have enough support to win.

But what if you've no outlet for that message, or those outlets are trying to fuck you, even when they do give you a voice?

Granted, there are a few biased the other way, the Canary for instance, but i really don't think you could class them as mainstream media.
Interesting little piece from the canary