Jeremy Corbyn Popularity Sinks To 14%

Original post by jape

http://uk.businessinsider.com/these-stark-new-figures-show-jeremy-corbyn-is-leading-labour-towards-disaster-2017-1

How long until Labour actually dies? Full on ceases to be the second party? I honestly think if Nuttall can pull the Kippers together Labour will cease to exist in any meaningful way after the 2020 election. As long as Labour keeps electing retrograde commies as leaders, anyway.

Are you after a one party state or something?

Labour is in for a brutal change. A gorgeous change. Think about it, the turmoil of 2016, there's something stirring up....

change awaits us, sleep well..

Reply 63

JamesN88

20

Original post by jape

The online and TV news media is leftist. Nobody reads physical newspapers, and they're the only parts of the media that are conservative.

The most widely read "news" sources in the UK are the Sun and the Mail. And a lot of people still read actual papers, it's just young people that read online only.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 64

Original post by JamesN88

The most widely read "news" sources in the UK are the Sun and the Mail. And a lot of people still read actual papers, it's just young people that read online only.

However the BBC completely dominate when it comes to the sources of all news, they're consistently just short of a majority, the runners up having but a third of the consumption the BBC does, with news corp and DMG, those evil sources of news that control the elections, each having less than one tenth what the BBC has and combined barely half of ITN or Sky

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 65

Original post by Wōden

You need tough and armed working class men to start a proper revolution. You don't have many of them in the Labour party anymore. You have soft, middle class, gender non-conformist, hipsters who have an aversion to guns. What are you going to do, surround parliament and barrage it with vegan burgers? Or maybe you could bore the current government to death with one of Jeremy Corbyn's dull speeches.

Do you really need tough and armed working class men to start a revolution? Do you not know what age we live in? It's post physical, baby.

You are right though, Labour is losing ground with the working class. Probably because the old fashioned violence you speak of is being harboured in by the right. And it's so incredibly false that it makes me sick. When there was violence and aggression for the rights of the working man, from the ground up, that had strength. The violence you get in this day and age, hatred, racism, misogyny and celebration of blind ignorance? That is disconcerting.... it does nothing for anyone other than those who are channeling the feelings of discontent for their own means. Corruption, power etc. It reeks of it. It doesn't come from a good place.

You seem to despise people who love peace and equality, how hilarious, how very trump, how very irate.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 66

OP

Original post by JamesN88

The most widely read "news" sources in the UK are the Sun and the Mail.

Not strictly true. The BBC News sites are viewed almost four times as often as the Mail's (18.9bn compared to about 4bn) and they're still behind Yahoo, and barely ahead of the Guardian.

Original post by SophiaNeuning

Are you after a one party state or something?

Labour is in for a brutal change. A gorgeous change. Think about it, the turmoil of 2016, there's something stirring up....

change awaits us, sleep well..

I don't want a one party state. I just don't want one of the parties in my two-party state to be run by Marxist clowns.

Thankfully, looking at the figures, that won't be the case for long. I shall sleep very soundly indeed.

Reply 67

Original post by Jammy Duel

However the BBC completely dominate when it comes to the sources of all news, they're consistently just short of a majority, the runners up having but a third of the consumption the BBC does, with news corp and DMG, those evil sources of news that control the elections, each having less than one tenth what the BBC has and combined barely half of ITN or Sky

Posted from TSR Mobile

Interesting. Where do you find this info? Cba to look myself.

Reply 68

Original post by jape

Not strictly true. The BBC News sites are viewed almost four times as often as the Mail's (18.9bn compared to about 4bn) and they're still behind Yahoo, and barely ahead of the Guardian.

I don't want a one party state. I just don't want one of the parties in my two-party state to be run by Marxist clowns.

Thankfully, looking at the figures, that won't be the case for long. I shall sleep very soundly indeed.

Oh come on, 'marxist clowns', you might do well to realise that your hyperbole is SO on trend with the current political climate atm.

You're probably right though, it's just so sad to see the possible demise of a political party that did so much for the people of this country. What do you hope for instead?

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 69

OP

Original post by SophiaNeuning

Oh come on, 'marxist clowns', you might do well to realise that your hyperbole is SO on trend with the current political climate atm.

Marxist [mahrk-sist]
noun
1. an adherent of Karl Marx or his theories.

Jeremy Corbyn: We all owe something to [Marx] - We can learn a great deal from him
John McDonnell (to the question of who are his greatest influences): The fundamental Marxist writers of Marx, Lenin and Trotsky, basically.

It's not hyperbole. It's reality.

Reply 70

Original post by jape

Marxist [mahrk-sist]
noun
1. an adherent of Karl Marx or his theories.

Jeremy Corbyn: We all owe something to [Marx] - We can learn a great deal from him
John McDonnell (to the question of who are his greatest influences): The fundamental Marxist writers of Marx, Lenin and Trotsky, basically.

It's not hyperbole. It's reality.

To call the entirety of the labour party, and by your line of thinking, the entirety of its voters, 'marxists' is absolutely hyperbolic. It completely defies any form of subtlety and nuance. Could you imagine, writing up your little essay on the labour party, would you refer to them all as 'marxists'? You would be laughed at. Nevermind your little 'clown' supplement. Now that really defies rationality and intelligence, and instead reduces you to 'COMMIE SCUM!112F!'. If that's how you like to discuss politics, well go ahead, how befitting of 2016. I also like how you didn't respond to my question about what you would like instead of Labour and the Tories.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 71

Original post by SophiaNeuning

Interesting. Where do you find this info? Cba to look myself.

Ofcom report on media consumption every year, via google found the one specific to the news (for 2014) it includes how the news is consumed (about 75% of people watch the news, 40% read a physical paper, about a third listen on the radio and I can't remember online), average number of news sources and how they're distributed across platforms (general trend is away from physical in favour of online), and ownership of the consumption. Probably had other stuff too but I only really looked at the bits I needed the info from.

Reply 72

OP

Original post by SophiaNeuning

To call the entirety of the labour party, and by your line of thinking, the entirety of its voters, 'marxists' is absolutely hyperbolic. It completely defies any form of subtlety and nuance. Could you imagine, writing up your little essay on the labour party, would you refer to them all as 'marxists'? You would be laughed at. Nevermind your little 'clown' supplement. Now that really defies rationality and intelligence, and instead reduces you to 'COMMIE SCUM!112F!'. If that's how you like to discuss politics, well go ahead, how befitting of 2016. I like how you didn't respond to my question about what you would like instead of Labour and the Tories.

I specifically said run by Marxist clowns. Which it is. If you're prepared to disagree with what I wrote rather than gushing about the evils of 2016 and using the hilariously original "numbers-in-place-of-many-exclamation-points" joke, please go on.

Oh, and I did reply to the specific question asked me. You asked if I wanted a one party state, to which I said no.

Reply 73

Original post by Jammy Duel

Ofcom report on media consumption every year, via google found the one specific to the news (for 2014) it includes how the news is consumed (about 75% of people watch the news, 40% read a physical paper, about a third listen on the radio and I can't remember online), average number of news sources and how they're distributed across platforms (general trend is away from physical in favour of online), and ownership of the consumption. Probably had other stuff too but I only really looked at the bits I needed the info from.

Brilliant, thanks. Oh God, I wonder how many people get their news from Facebook.

Reply 74

Original post by SophiaNeuning

Brilliant, thanks. Oh God, I wonder how many people get their news from Facebook.

Facebook won't count, because it's via rather than from, it would count as the source. So if it were a link to a mail article it would count as DMG consumption, or a BBC link counting as BBC, or the times as News Corp

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 75

Original post by jape

I specifically said run by Marxist clowns. Which it is. If you're prepared to disagree with what I wrote rather than gushing about the evils of 2016 and using the hilariously original "numbers-in-place-of-many-exclamation-points" joke, please go on.

Oh, and I did reply to the specific question asked me. You asked if I wanted a one party state, to which I said no.

You might have specifically said 'run' by marxist clowns, but if you tar all the members of the party with the same crude brush then you might as well tar its followers. Are they not supporters of the ideologies that form the basis of the party? Oh wait, are not those ideologies complex and divergent, therefore causing the lack of unity that is running the party into the ground? Oh wait, so they can't all be an army of marxist clowns after all.

It's not a joke, I honestly wish it was. It perfectly sums up the over the top MARXISTSSSS cries you get all over the internet. Wherein anyone with any association to the left is a MARXISSST!!132, I mean, you can't go calling an entire party 'marxist clowns' without it being assumed that you think IN EXCLAMATION MARKS11!!1!2321!!.

I asked you what you hoped for instead of the two party system we now currently have. What would be perfect, in your view?

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 76

Original post by Jammy Duel

Facebook won't count, because it's via rather than from, it would count as the source. So if it were a link to a mail article it would count as DMG consumption, or a BBC link counting as BBC, or the times as News Corp

Posted from TSR Mobile

Yeah, right you are. I don't necessarily mean the links that FB leads to though, I mean the random, unestablished 'news' sites that lead to misquotes and general 'fake news'. But yeah, very interesting stuff. Thank you

Reply 77

OP

Blegh this is more work than it should be.

Original post by SophiaNeuning

You might have specifically said 'run' by marxist clowns, but if you tar all the ?members? of the party with the same crude brush then you might as well tar its followers. Are they not supporters of the ideologies that form the basis of the party? Oh wait, are not those ideologies complex and divergent, therefore causing the lack of unity that is running the party into the ground? Oh wait, so they can't all be an army of marxist clowns after all.

Damn, you're right. If only I had specifically said that the people running the party were Marxist clowns, that way I would have avoided implying that the entire Labour base is 100% on board with the Corbyn-McDonnell project, which literally everyone knows not to be true.

It's not a joke, I honestly wish it was. It perfectly sums up the over the top MARXISTSSSS cries you get all over the internet. Wherein anyone with any association to the left is a MARXISSST!!132, I mean, you can't go calling an entire party 'marxist clowns' without it being assumed that you think IN EXCLAMATION MARKS11!!1!2321!!.

The specific people (not party) that I referred to as Marxists are self-identified Marxists. Corbyn fudged it a bit by saying that Marx is basically great but stopped short of using the M-word, with McDonnell there's no denying it. It's not that they're a bit to the left, it's that they are actual Marxists.

I asked you what you hoped for instead. Instead of the two party system we now currently have.

And I said that I liked the two-party system, sans-Marx, and that I didn't want a one-party system.

Reply 78

Original post by SophiaNeuning

Yeah, right you are. I don't necessarily mean the links that FB leads to though, I mean the random, unestablished 'news' sites that lead to misquotes and general 'fake news'. But yeah, very interesting stuff. Thank you

Ofcom probably have decent estimates for the likes of the Huffington post, breitbart, pink news, and all the other questionably reliable and outright unreliable sources, but obviously none of them are going to be anywhere near big enough yet to break out of the "other" section of the headline analysis.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 79