If a post of yours gets deleted, then it has been decided by the moderators of this forum to be not in keeping with the level of discussion we want in this forum, like crude attacks or baseless and potentially inflammatory claims. Do not fight it, accept it and try another tack.

 

It's not a battle you can win in the long run :

 

I wasn't a fan of punk generally, but The Clash were better than most.

 

There is an actual article out there showing how senior positions within the BBC have been handed out by Tories and involve long-held Tory supporters - now that would be a much better way of providing evidence that the Tories have been systematically using the BBC for it's own ends and a proper investigation demanded by Labour might be argued to be justified. Though they would have to get whistleblowers to come up with proof that their work is being directed from above politically.

 

But what happened between 1997 & 2010 - the Tories could not have controlled BBC appointee then...

 

I don't understand why papers need to be left or right. It just turns news into propaganda.

 

If all newspapers reported the same news, in the same way, then surely that would be far closer to propaganda? A free press *needs* a range of editorial stances in order to compare the picture from multiple pov's. Just because one particular stance turns you off, doesn't mean that everyone should be prevented from hearing it.

Edited May 7, 20187 yr by vidcapper

It's also noticeable how many vacancies at Tory Central Office are filled by people from the BBC.

 

As for the Mirror/Express, as the only two mid-market tabloids are the Mail and Express, I don't see how the Express moving leftwards would be bad for political plurality.

 

True, and neither do I. I'm rather hoping it does move leftwards and the fans don't notice.... :lol:

It's not a battle you can win in the long run :

 

I wasn't a fan of punk generally, but The Clash were better than most.

But what happened between 1997 & 2010 - the Tories could not have controlled BBC appointee then...

 

 

I Fought The Law is an early 60's Bobby Fuller Four American song and nothing to do with politics, The Clash didnt write it.

 

Perhaps you'd prefer this classic genre-spearheading punk song as an anthem?

 

 

The Tory-Lite New labour did as all political parties did with appointments when in power, I expect. I doubt any of them have an overt state-controlled policy of supporting the party in power or else I would have noticed, along with the press. The Right Wing press still slag of the BBC as being lefty, and the lefties slag 'em off for being righty, and the lidbems dont slag em off at all despite getting virtually no air-time from them unlike the first two.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I Fought The Law is an early 60's Bobby Fuller Four American song and nothing to do with politics, The Clash didnt write it.

 

Ah, but I didn't claim they had. :P

 

Perhaps you'd prefer this classic genre-spearheading punk song as an anthem?

 

<snip>

 

No thanks!

Edited May 7, 20187 yr by vidcapper

It's not a battle you can win in the long run :

 

I wasn't a fan of punk generally, but The Clash were better than most.

But what happened between 1997 & 2010 - the Tories could not have controlled BBC appointee then...

If all newspapers reported the same news, in the same way, then surely that would be far closer to propaganda? A free press *needs* a range of editorial stances in order to compare the picture from multiple pov's. Just because one particular stance turns you off, doesn't mean that everyone should be prevented from hearing it.

 

 

???

 

No.

 

Just report the facts. No need to gloss it up with EXCITING BOLD TO TELL PEOPLE HOW TO FEEL. SHOCK as Labour leader HARDLY BOWS!!!!!!! Our 1950s journos had their measuring tapes and were NOT AMUSED

 

Or just report on facts. That is not propaganda. The absence of propaganda is not itself propaganda.

???

 

No.

 

Just report the facts. No need to gloss it up with EXCITING BOLD TO TELL PEOPLE HOW TO FEEL. SHOCK as Labour leader HARDLY BOWS!!!!!!! Our 195ps journos had their measuring tapes and were NOT AMUAEDM

 

Or just report on facts. That is not propaganda. The absence of propaganda is not

 

But sensationalism sells more newspapers, so nothing is going to change.

Ah, but I didn't claim they had. :P

 

Perhaps you'd prefer this classic genre-spearheading punk song as an anthem?

 

<snip>

 

No thanks!

 

Tried to make a point using an old 60's song and saying the Clash were one of the few punk bands you liked (their real political songs might not exactly be in your general range of opinion I think you'll find, as they were quite left-wing). Sex Pistols were more nihislistic and anti-authority. Just saying.....

Likely the opposite will happen after this disappointment. Labour really need to win run-of-the-mill towns which lean towards Leave such as Nuneaton and Swindon. Yes, they've also underperformed in certain middle class, Remain areas (and this may be shown through low turnout more than anything), but the former are more important to winning a parliamentary majority.

 

Which is disgusting. If we get anything resembling Blue Labour after Corbyn then I'll VERY ANGRY okay.

 

I really don't see it as a disappointment; sure the gains have been restricted to the metropolitan areas like London - but those gains are pretty remarkable (e.g. a 0.4% lead on the Tories in true blue Wandsworth, and only 1.7% behind in Westminster) and once the fog of Brexit clears the issues and questions that people REALLY care about will come to the foreground once more, which at the moment only Corbyn/McDonnell seem to have answers big enough to address.

 

Overall the main story from the night was a good night for the Liberal Democrats, as I had kind of expected it would be - and (almost) a complete collapse of UKIP. The vote share for the two main parties remains similar to what it was in June 2017, which speaks to an increasingly divided and polarised electorate, and I don't think we'll be seeing any dramatic changes to that this year.

Which is disgusting. If we get anything resembling Blue Labour after Corbyn then I'll VERY ANGRY okay.

 

If you mean 'more centrist', I'd say that for a Labour gov't to actually be *electable*, it pretty much has to be - that's why they won in 1997.

That may have been true in 1997, but I don't know if you've looked at a calendar recently Vid but it is now *2018*. :P

 

Biggest increase in the share of Labour vote since Attlee in 1945 says you may be wrong!

Over 50% of Of he vote in local elections when the electorate hat votes in that doesn't usually swing Labour...

That may have been true in 1997, but I don't know if you've looked at a calendar recently Vid but it is now *2018*. :P

 

Biggest increase in the share of Labour vote since Attlee in 1945 says you may be wrong!

 

But they still didn't *win* the last GE, don'r forget.

Who votes in local election? Most Labour voters don't, but conservatives do. I don't support either. I don't think local elections tell you anything about the state of national elections. There are often lots of local issues dominating the vote

Who votes in local election? Most Labour voters don't, but conservatives do. I don't support either. I don't think local elections tell you anything about the state of national elections. There are often lots of local issues dominating the vote

 

I *usually* do - but this time there was a choice of just two, neither of whom had any appeal to me.

There are many reasons why people don't vote in local elections. Two of them can be summarised as "It doesn't make any difference".

 

First, the powers of local government have been steadily eroded over the last 35 years or so. Large part of what local government can and can't do is dictated from Whitehall. Therefore, it simply isn't possible for a party to promise major change.

 

Second, of course, is the electoral system. There are plenty of councils which have been run by the same party - often with little or no opposition - for decades.

 

On top of that, there are issues such as the decline in local newspapers. That means that, for many people, the only information on what the council is doing comes from individual councillors and local parties (if you happen to live in a ward that competitive enough for them to bother) or the council itself.

There are many reasons why people don't vote in local elections. Two of them can be summarised as "It doesn't make any difference".

 

Second, of course, is the electoral system. There are plenty of councils which have been run by the same party - often with little or no opposition - for decades.

 

I think STV would work very well in local elections. Coalitions are commonplace, so the old FPTP=strong (local) gov't is not crucial at this level. Most wards are multi-member so that's ideal for STV, also it would ensure real competition between parties, rather than just having the right coloured rosette.

 

 

I think STV would work very well in local elections. Coalitions are commonplace, so the old FPTP=strong (local) gov't is not crucial at this level. Most wards are multi-member so that's ideal for STV, also it would ensure real competition between parties, rather than just having the right coloured rosette.

Wards tend to have two or three councillors, so the simplest thing to do there is just to combine pairs of wards.

 

The only downside to STV in local elections is that it would more or less force councils to have all-up elections. OTOH, one of the reasons I prefer election by thirds is that it prevents one party going from almost no councillors to controlling the council in one election. STV would make that very unlikely.

Wards tend to have two or three councillors, so the simplest thing to do there is just to combine pairs of wards.

 

The only downside to STV in local elections is that it would more or less force councils to have all-up elections. OTOH, one of the reasons I prefer election by thirds is that it prevents one party going from almost no councillors to controlling the council in one election. STV would make that very unlikely.

 

Cheltenham has 20 wards of 2 councillors each, so changing to 10 with 4 each would work well with STV. I don't see all-up elections as being a problem.

Cheltenham has 20 wards of 2 councillors each, so changing to 10 with 4 each would work well with STV. I don't see all-up elections as being a problem.

Under FPTP there have been occasions where one party has swept the board having previously had very few councillors. On most occasions, things have not gone well. Not only are there a lot of people with no experience trying to run the council, there are also likely to be a number of councillors who were not expecting to win. This isn't a party political point - I've seen examples involving all three main parties in England. In some cases it has happened in two successive elections.

STV and all up elections work well in Scotland. All 32 councils are officially NOC now that Labour has lost Glasgow. It also helps with vote fatigue by not having local elections so frequently. At a time when resources are limited all up elections would save money for everyone involved. There’s a lot of arguments for it and really I’m yet to see a solid argument in favour of keeping FPTP