Psychoactive Substances: Rolling UK Politics in The Neo-Con Era

Well, surely even the dogs in the street could tell that the working poor, just getting by with help of in-work benefits, had nothing to gain and much to fear from a tory victory in may. Some people just would not be persuaded until they actually find themselves out of pocket, and it's far too late.

I think there is a certain 'they came for the unemployed/disabled, but i wasn't unemployed/disabled...' element to this, sadly.

Neimöller's words aren't a caution for Tories, ithey're a fucking blueprint.

Education needn't mean a lecture, top-down. One of the better things Corbyn has talked about is the need to make policy using consultation, certainly something more democratic than the leadership looking at results from polls and focus groups (that reflect attitudes shaped by the press in vicious circle) and formulating policy that will pander to people.

I've no clear idea to detail the inner workings of an "education" but attitudes on all sides have to change otherwise relying on people's selfish interest is a no-go. Vote Labour if I go hungry one min and Tories if I have a bit of money is not a strategy. A wider conversation has to be had.

today's LOL:

Nick Cohen ‏@NickCohen4

Has anyone had friendships break up or tested because of the Corbyn election? If so, please contact me

Tom Gann ‏@Tom_Gann

Hi, @NickCohen4, I've had a couple of strained conversations with anarchist friends over my not totally rejecting Corbyn, can you help me?

I've no clear idea to detail the inner workings of an "education" but attitudes on all sides have to change otherwise relying on people's selfish interest is a no-go. Vote Labour if I go hungry one min and Tories if I have a bit of money is not a strategy. A wider conversation has to be had.

It's also possible to over-rely on the empathy of the electorate, especially on that of people who are really struggling themselves. Some of these people are likely to be relatively uneducated and only engaging in the debate through the sort of media outlets that have deliberately let people think that 'benefits' are for the unemployed. If they are engaging at all. Some of these people will be doing more than one job and supporting families - how does 'consultation' reach people who are short on both money and time? But if the Labour Party can't talk honestly to working class people about advancing their interests then they're in more trouble than I thought.

Nick Cohen ‏@NickCohen4
Has anyone had friendships break up or tested because of the Corbyn election? If so, please contact me

Might have to start by explaining what a friend is to Nick Cohen.

I am not saying 'consultation' -- that was more around formulating future policies but yes Labour (or any party) members probably have a bit more time, or make that commitment. I used that to show that at least one of the parties are listening to more ppl/willing to have more open conversations, just a change in attitude I want see carried over somehow.

People have voted against their interests time and again which makes me think voting for your interest (and yours alone) is a problem. Don't feel its right to plug into their selfishness for some short-term votes. "Love-bombing" someone who was quite happy to see other poor disabled people being sacrificed is not an amazing approach.

Media obviously plays a huge part in the construction of self-interest or selfishness though. It's rarely 'let's f' the disabled' more an angle where 'scroungers' are vilified as part of an argument that supports policies, which also affect the disabled. Yes that may be obvious in one sense, but it's rarely presented that way. I'm not sure i want to see anyone love-bombed tho.

Nobody has mentioned that this woman was a voter in Thanet, where lots of people like her voted Tory so as not to elect Nigel Farage. I'm really not into that whole 'serves her right' cruelty, because the 2015 Conservative manifesto made a promise not to cut tax credits for young families, but as a result I think quite a few voters in precarious or low-paid work won't forget they were lied to.

Or not 'happy', she has kids and a struggling business and thought she'd have more of an income (this is why I say conversation, important for both sides to learn and certain not to demonise one another). And much of the damage was done by a Labour party that refused to talk about all that welfare does do.

Still, no love-bombing.

Voting in your own self-interest, I'm not suggesting a poll or anything, but has anyone here ever done it?

It's a bit like those tables and graphs newspapers produce after a Budget to show how you (and your family) might lose or benefit as a result, anyone ever look at them?

Surely everyone votes in their own self interest? Isn't that the point of voting?

Is it? Maybe I've done it without thinking I've done it.

My general view is that the government shouldn't be making policy for the likes of me, I can take care of myself. I also think some people have more perspective wrt what's in their own interest than others do (and that's not unique to any one income group). But srsly what's actually wrong with convincing some of the poorest people in the country that voting Labour would be in their own self-interest? It doesn't mean they're going to immediately vote Tory as soon as they move into a different tax bracket, if that ever happens.

I wouldn' t have imagined that many people vote for a party that they genuinely believe if elected would make the country a worse place to live.

Yeah but they might be prepared to personally take a bit of a hit in order to make the country better. The poorer you are, the less likely that is to happen.

Well, yes, who has ever voted on the basis that they are personally going to be better off?

McDonnell and Labour will reverse tax credit cuts. They'll convince ppl of that much and it should be an easy, short conversation?

To me it leaves a gap.

Oh...

http://press.labour.org.uk/post/131566490399/seumas-milne-appointed-labours-executive-director

Oh for shit's sake.

I'm voting Tory.

Why the actual fuck would you go ahead and appoint a Director of Communications who, at a stroke, underlines all your detractors' worst impressions of you? I mean, I know Cameron did it but look how that turned out.

kinda lol mostly sad

"Who can we get it to convince the press I'm not a closet Stalinist? I know... Seumas Milne!"

every seamus milne article ive ever read has been the most simplistic, kneejerk, stereotypically "lefty" load of crud imaginable. sort of a perfect fit for the corbynites, but can we all just agree now that electorally labour are absolutely doomed?

Milne was the business manager of Straight Left, a monthly publication of an orthodox factional group within the Communist Party of Great Britain.[8] Milne worked as a staff journalist for three years on The Economist before joining The Guardian

Genuinely intrigued as to what he must have said in his Economist interview.

I was a member of a far-left grouplet as a student (not CPGB) and the senior comrades were always encouraging us to read the Economist, thought very highly of it

know your enemy

there's that old observation about the articles in Militant and the Economist being almost interchangeable, just replace the last paragraph from 'this shows the need for a fighting Labour party that will nationalise the commanding heights of the economy etc etc' to 'this shows the needs for liberalising the labour market, dead hand of government etc etc'

That may be the case, but I was always under the impression that the Economist liked its journalists to be true believers.

"The pace of these reforms is s too hard and too fast"

and like is the slower fucking strangulation of disabled people a more palatable option, you tory twat?

Seamus Milne is a guy whose comms 'policy' will be to tell the Mail to go fuck itself, repeatedly.

When will the good news stop?

My take (which is probably naive) is that he picked someone who he could trust for a position where the wrong candidate could undermine and potentially destroy him. And there are already plenty enough people trying to do that.

Seamus Milne's opinions/outlook align with Corbyn. Both are on the same page re: LOL Media, except Milne has extensive experience and operates within it. Stalin? Is that some guy from the 30s?

Corbyn didn't get to be leader by winning people over - he'll be PM or destroy Labour.

Remember the days when Ed did one over the Mail for being rude about his dad? Look at how far we've come. Progress.

The guardian are reporting the potential lords rebellion as "Lords forced to back down on tax credits motion as Tory rebellion grows" as if it were already a done deal and they had already been quashed. *sigh*

PLP finds it really hard to hear the truth about itself huh?

if there's one thing press bullies will pounce on it's equivocation or weakness and if there's one thing they'll praise to the skies it's some notion of authenticity. so maybe corbyn's doubling down with true believers like mcdonnell and milne might actually be a good thing? i.e. disagree with 'em all you want but you can't say they're writing their policies by focus group. i realise i am probably deluding myself yes.

and yes i've rarely been able to make it through a milne op-ed without rolling my eyes and turning the page, he's like the glenn greenwald of leftie guardian editorials

Literally nothing good has ever been said about Milne on ILX - I had a look in the archives and pretty much the closest thing is a neutral Pinefox post stating that he'd bought his book and had yet to read it.

Corbyn didn't get to be leader by winning people over - he'll be PM or destroy Labour.

None of this is true at all - winning people over was exactly what he did, and he won people over in pretty large numbers. One of the reasons he did is that he's capable of sounding consistent, reasonable and principled when other people were falling over themselves to triangulate and capitulate. He has been winning people over and should be capable of doing so if he doesn't just surround himself with bruisers, frauds, yes-men and people who are actively out to get him. Whether there's anyone out there who doesn't fall into one of those categories is a different question. I don't think it's true that he'll either be PM or destroy the party either, unless something with both wide appeal and funding magically appears to replace it. Stepping down midway through this term still seems like the most likely option.

I think Xelab's take is probably right but then that speaks to the level of hostility within the PLP and how few allies Corbyn actually has. Wherever you are on the spectrum there are pitfalls to surrounding yourself with people who basically agree with everything you say, as New Labour found out. A Director of Communications doesn't actually have to be 100% ideologically aligned. They just need to be not actively hostile and able to do their job in a professional manner (which includes asking difficult questions).

If all you need is someone to go 'lol media, FU Daily Mail' then why appoint anyone at all? Ultimately the Mail and the Sun are never going to be anyone other than hostile. What you do need is someone who can keep gaffes to a minimum (like, say, your Shadow Chancellor unilaterally deciding to support the fiscal charter and then making the right decision too late) and outline a proper strategy for nominally neutral or sympathetic titles. What they can't be is someone who's going to be a lightning rod for negative press. It's what broke Campbell, nearly destroyed Blair and undermined Cameron's first term.

He would probably have been better off getting someone lower profile from Canada or Australia or somewhere. Whether such a person exists I don't know.

The only vaguely positive things i've heard about the appointment are that Milne has good contacts in the wider press and it might be harder for the Guardian to go after one of their own.

He's awful, though.

The change in the rules as to who could vote in that election, exhaustion of the Blair/Brown camps and Corbyn not changing his views that made him a fringe figure for the majority of his time suddenly became a bagful of pluses for a lot of people, but it happened by accident. He won people over - from one point of view...but the way I look at it is that all these things aligned at the right time for him. It can't be discounted that Corbyn is nice and friendly.

So you see this accident playing out in the appointments of people who align with his views but don't sound as reasonable or what have you: McDonnell, Milne and the like. The problem is there are almost no sympathetic titles: Daily Record, Mirror? Don't feel its a huge deal, or a massive mistake. I think many difficult questions are asked already by many members of his own shadown cabinet.

"He'll be PM or destroy Labour" yeah ok, no it probably won't be either/or. xp

for nominally neutral or sympathetic titles.

er, lol.

Two things that aren't negotiable in that position are loyalty to the leadership, and a large capacity for bullying control-freakery. Pop those in the algorithm, you come out with Milne, I guess. He's also media aristocracy, albeit a black sheep politically, as son of ex BBC DG Alasdair Milne (which may help in the job- this is England after all. On the other hand it may be more of a stick to beat him with). It's always a bad idea to have a spin doctor become the story though, it'll be bad news if that happens with Milne.

Aside The Record or Mirror that is (?)

Guardian reporting this in the dullest way possible. Far more on the policy chief. xp

From what I've seen, the Mirror has been fairly sympathetic, or at least has continued to attack the tories rather than labour, unlike the Graun, the New Wasteman, etc.

xp an appalling blasphemous heresy for a big media organisation to hint at, but maybe the policy chief is... more important?

lol look at me doing a 180 degree flip on the Guardian within thirty seconds

http://i2.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article6670819.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/MAIN-Jeremy-Corbyn-state-banquet.jpg

Any other thread fashion critics onto this?

neolab black ops unit steps things up but taking Michael Meacher :(

That's a shame. Always wondered what might have happened if he had not launched that ridiculous libel action in 1984.