Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    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
    Yeah. Although I wouldn't place the Huffington Post in the same category as those other two!
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SophiaNeuning)
    Yeah. Although I wouldn't place the Huffington Post in the same category as those other two!
    I would, their journalistic quality is poor at best, I would happily clump them with the express, breitbart, and pink news given the rather low journalistic integrity, it's the breitbart of the left. Remember that these are the people that to push their "liberal" leftist feminist agenda tweeted a picture of their all white female board as part of making accusations of a lack of diversity in boards

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Haha, being influenced by, and learning from, a theorist isn't the equivalent of advocating for everything that they do. Thousands of political theorists have been influenced by Marx, largely because he was so prolific. Plenty of Capitalists see the merit in, for example, Marx's critiques of Capitalism. They carefully consider the points that Marx makes, and will perhaps come to the reasoned judgement that Capitalism, although not perfect, is better than alternatives. Would this make them Marxists because they agree with Marx on some of his critiques? Of course not. Same with any idea.

    Obviously, the labour party isn't advocating for Socialism, and neither is Corbyn. Making that implication just gives off the impression that you just don't understand what Socialism is
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    oh and yeah, Huffpost is dreadful
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by XiuXiu)
    Haha, being influenced by, and learning from, a theorist isn't the equivalent of advocating for everything that they do. Thousands of political theorists have been influenced by Marx, largely because he was so prolific. Plenty of Capitalists see the merit in, for example, Marx's critiques of Capitalism. They carefully consider the points that Marx makes, and will perhaps come to the reasoned judgement that Capitalism, although not perfect, is better than alternatives. Would this make them Marxists because they agree with Marx on some of his critiques? Of course not. Same with any idea.

    Obviously, the labour party isn't advocating for Socialism, and neither is Corbyn. Making that implication just gives off the impression that you just don't understand what Socialism is
    John McDonnell particularly was very clear about his admiration for Marx and the murderers he inspired. If you want more I doubt it would take much effort, but that's more effort than I'm willing to expend at 3am.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jape)
    John McDonnell particularly was very clear about his admiration for Marx and the murderers he inspired. If you want more I doubt it would take much effort, but that's more effort than I'm willing to expend at 3am.
    Yeah, he admires Marx. As I said, I don't see anything particularly wrong with this. Awareness of basic ideas of Capitalist critique, like class consciousness and theories of labour value, certainly doesn't make the labour party a Socialist party; I'd hope that as many politicians as possible, from all parts of the political spectrum, are well read enough to understand them.

    Thinking that the Labour party is Marxist is pretty laughable. It doesn't even really have much to do with the political alignment of the leaders in it; if the party isn't advocating for redistributions of wealth and a switch to worker-owned means of production (they aren't, and never will), then they are not Socialist.

    Nor does a Marxist influence make anyone advocate murder lols, it's not like Karl 'High Score' Marx says anything like "the goal of Communism is to kill as many as possible". Linking Marx with murder of any kind is a reach
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I'm trying very hard to understand Corbyn's appeal. It's just old Labour socialist wine in new bottles. Nationalisation doesn't lower costs or improve quality in most instances and it won't bring lasting prosperity. Trade unions with a lot of bargaining power can end up bankrupting corporations and in the end the taxpayer will foot the bill (through bailouts). Etc, etc.

    Nothing new about his views and yet people act as if he's saying something we haven't heard before.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I do think labour are doomed in the long run. They are trying to hold together demographic groups that don't really share the same opinions. The white working class, the "Islington" group and the immigrants don't have a lot in common. Labour could previously win elections on the white working class vote alone but that is no longer the case.

    I think Blair was an anomaly. It is only through his remarkable political leadership that labour got back in and there isn't anybody in the Labour party in his league as a political player.

    At any leadership election since then, I have looked at the candidates and thought none of them stand a chance. They can't win elections on policy because they can't keep enough people happy at the same time. What could Miliband do on the issue of the EU and immigration? It was a lose-lose situation. Even with the benefit of hindsight, I don't see any policy changes that would have won Labour that election.

    The only way Labour can win is with a big personality with enough charisma to hold all the groups together but, as with Blair, I think it is only delaying the inevitable.

    Having said that, there is no party which looks set to challenge them for a place in the top two. Ukip will steal votes but I can't see it ever replacing the Labour party, it doesn't have the breadth of support for that. The Liberal Democrats may be making a bit of ground under Corbyn but they don't offer anything different from Labour. If they get rid of Corbyn and get a Vanilla leader in, the Lib Dems will lose all the ground they make up.

    It is only a matter of time before people get fed up with the Conservatives and when they do, Labour will probably still be the only alternative. For that reason, I think we will see another Labour government. Big reallignments in poltics don't come around often and I don't think we are quite ready for one yet.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    This is all the result of an intellectual failure.

    What we are witnessing is a revolt against globalisation, identity politics, cultural relativism, internationalism, political correctness and the manifest failures of the ruling elites.

    But much of what is being attacked is the result of soi disant "progressive" social thinking. The dominant intellectual fashion of the last half century.

    So Labour has no answer, can never have any answer. To align itself with the popular (let's not use the pejorative "populist" term for a change, huh?), I'll say again the popular mood, would be to go against everything it believes in.

    The obvious example of this is immigration. This is electoral kryptonite. A total showstopper at the ballot box. Even the dimmest lefty must have realised this by now. Yet Labour cannot bring itself to support immigration controls. Corbyn won't advocate bringing them in, and those Labour figures who go against party policy and advocate them are not believed.

    As long as leftist intellectuals continue to w'ank off about transgender bathrooms and safe spaces, and free movement of labour and the more Islamic influence in our society and polity the better, left wing political parties will be barren at the ballot box.

    The big phrase now is too weak to win too strong to die. I wouldn't bank on that. The Labour vote is a corpse, being fed on by all the other parties. hey are losing votes to the Tories, the Lib Dems, and UKIP.

    This isn't just Corbyn. It is the intellectual bankruptcy of an entire social ideology.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Wait.. Corbyn has popularity!

    Being serious i think that Labour have brought this upon themselves. In Corbyn they have elected a Republican who cares more about the people of Palestine than the white children growing up in Wrexham.

    I'm not sure they are as dead as the poster above believes (though May's One Nation positioning is brilliant) but Labour have forgotten that your average voter only votes on two or three big issues and anything else is just a bonus. They need to ditch the extremists and then focus solely on the economy.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Wait.. Corbyn has popularity!

    Being serious i think that Labour have brought this upon themselves. In Corbyn they have elected a Republican who cares more about the people of Palestine than the white children growing up in Wrexham.

    I'm not sure they are as dead as the poster above believes (though May's One Nation positioning is brilliant) but Labour have forgotten that your average voter only votes on two or three big issues and anything else is just a bonus. They need to ditch the extremists and then focus solely on the economy.
    Which they can't do because the people who choose who the leader is want to keep the extremists. And this, children, is why you have q minimum membership term before you get a vote in the leadership of any sensible party.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.