Labour ?

wenger2015 posted:

Is not SPIN just the same as Trumps Fake News? 

SPIN is just a more palatable description ....

Not really (imo).

Spin (to me) is explaining away the facts in a paletable way.  Spin used facts, but uses them selectively.  

Fake news is making up a story. And is an accusation levelled by certain politicians at the mainstream media when stories are run which paint them in a bad light.

Spin, fake-news, selctive information, misleading information, lies...............it all boils down to deceit.

Don Atkinson posted:

Spin, fake-news, selctive information, misleading information, lies...............it all boils down to deceit.

I think that's a very apt description.... And a very sad but true assessment of the political landscape.. 

Don Atkinson posted:

Spin, fake-news, selective information, misleading information, lies...............it all boils down to deceit.

Don - I tend to agree- however the selective information bit is interesting.. in the world of commerce, consumerism, marketing and dare I say politics one tends to highlight benefits and advantages and avoid or contain any disadvantages, risks etc - as the aim is communicate a benefit or advantage that the customer wants to hear so as to provide a positive or beneficial outcome making a decision easier... as long as its not false and a lie, surely this is the norm in many areas - and I suspect deep down its what people want to hear - sifting through all the pros and cons of everyday life decisions would probably be unworkable for many and some might not even otherwise be able to cope with getting out of bed in the morning  - but do we call focussing on such selective information deceit?

I guess it moves us into the concept of trust and people associating themselves with  an identity, movement or philosophy - so as to reduce the amount of decision making - and after all humans tend to be happiest when they have a sense of belonging to a group, culture, nationality, ideal, religion, philosophy etc. - i.e. the herd instinct..

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

Spin, fake-news, selective information, misleading information, lies...............it all boils down to deceit.

Don - I tend to agree- however the selective information bit is interesting.. in the world of commerce, consumerism, marketing and dare I say politics one tends to highlight benefits and advantages and avoid or contain any disadvantages, risks etc - as the aim is communicate a benefit or advantage that the customer wants to hear so as to provide a positive or beneficial outcome making a decision easier... as long as its not false and a lie, surely this is the norm in many areas - and I suspect deep down its what people want to hear - sifting through all the pros and cons of everyday life decisions would probably be unworkable for many and some might not even otherwise be able to cope with getting out of bed in the morning  - but do we call focussing on such selective information deceit?

....to a large extent, yes. Depends to a large extent on the disadvantages that are being covered up.

In a court of law we take an oath "to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" It's the whole truth that people have "difficulty" with. They "forget" bits.................

In politics (which is what we are really discussing) and especially when big decisions are being considered, it's important to have all the available facts on the table. We spend far too much time and effort trying to figure out what is being hidden from us.

wenger2015 posted:

I think Blairs credibility is damaged beyond repair. During his speech yesterday I made a mistake by saying he came across awkward , I meant to use the word arrogant.....  He is  obviously of the opinion he is held in high esteem .....!!!

Blair and his other half are narcissists. Each using each other for mutual gain. Blair has been trying to dig himself out of the sociopathic  hole he created for years. But it seems that politicians are allowed to change their feelings/meanings at a whim. Any normal person with no media attention would not have the opportunity to dig themselves out of the mess he got himself into. In fact,  they would have been prosecuted for acting in such a way. 

Don Atkinson posted:

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

Spin, fake-news, selective information, misleading information, lies...............it all boils down to deceit.

Don - I tend to agree- however the selective information bit is interesting.. in the world of commerce, consumerism, marketing and dare I say politics one tends to highlight benefits and advantages and avoid or contain any disadvantages, risks etc - as the aim is communicate a benefit or advantage that the customer wants to hear so as to provide a positive or beneficial outcome making a decision easier... as long as its not false and a lie, surely this is the norm in many areas - and I suspect deep down its what people want to hear - sifting through all the pros and cons of everyday life decisions would probably be unworkable for many and some might not even otherwise be able to cope with getting out of bed in the morning  - but do we call focussing on such selective information deceit?

....to a large extent, yes. Depends to a large extent on the disadvantages that are being covered up.

In a court of law we take an oath "to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" It's the whole truth that people have "difficulty" with. They "forget" bits.................

In politics (which is what we are really discussing) and especially when big decisions are being considered, it's important to have all the available facts on the table. We spend far too much time and effort trying to figure out what is being hidden from us.

Don - I agree - I guess there is ultimately a judgement call to be made on the type of decision to be made and what information is to be shared - its not black and white.

And where ever a judgement is being made I think its right it is queried, challenged and tested   by those who feel they need to.. after all we are dealing with human nature..

Blair needs to fight a By-election...

Now that would be interesting ... 

Blair has fought enough elections. Fighting another would be a waste of time and energy.

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

Spin, fake-news, selective information, misleading information, lies...............it all boils down to deceit.

Don - I tend to agree- however the selective information bit is interesting.. in the world of commerce, consumerism, marketing and dare I say politics one tends to highlight benefits and advantages and avoid or contain any disadvantages, risks etc - as the aim is communicate a benefit or advantage that the customer wants to hear so as to provide a positive or beneficial outcome making a decision easier... as long as its not false and a lie, surely this is the norm in many areas - and I suspect deep down its what people want to hear - sifting through all the pros and cons of everyday life decisions would probably be unworkable for many and some might not even otherwise be able to cope with getting out of bed in the morning  - but do we call focussing on such selective information deceit?

....to a large extent, yes. Depends to a large extent on the disadvantages that are being covered up.

In a court of law we take an oath "to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" It's the whole truth that people have "difficulty" with. They "forget" bits.................

In politics (which is what we are really discussing) and especially when big decisions are being considered, it's important to have all the available facts on the table. We spend far too much time and effort trying to figure out what is being hidden from us.

Don - I agree - I guess there is ultimately a judgement call to be made on the type of decision to be made and what information is to be shared - its not black and white.

And where ever a judgement is being made I think its right it is queried, challenged and tested   by those who feel they need to.. after all we are dealing with human nature..

Nicely put !

After her recent jiggy jiggy with Trump, perhaps Theresa May will go into Labour.

Just noticed a news item suggesting  Blair wants to work for Trump as a middle east ambassador, possibly the middle east is the best place for him? 

Hmack posted:

Wasn't Sir Bernard Ingham in Thatcher's Government the ultimate and possibly the inventor of 'spin' in British politics? 

Probably, but Sir Bernard would have argued he was there to convey the government's message in the most effective way possible. He was a civil servant in the classic definition. In fact he resigned his membership of the Labour Party to join the civil service. Unlike Campbell he worked for both Labour and Conservative governments. It's not widely known, because it's a long time ago, but he was Barbara Castle's press secretary.

Conversely, Campbell started as Blair's spokesman while Labour were in opposition, his job to advance Labour and Blair's agenda. It can be argued that throughout his tenure at Number 10 Campbell acted primarily to promote the party and Blair. It can also be argued that Campbell didn't just communicate government policy; a job he actually delegated to juniors, he influenced and set it. It was joked for many years that he was the real Deputy Prime Minister.

In my mind the biggest difference between Sir Bernard and Campbell was one sought to explain power, the other to define and control it.

wenger2015 posted:

Just noticed a news item suggesting  Blair wants to work for Trump as a middle east ambassador, possibly the middle east is the best place for him? 

A news item which is denied ... that would be an example of fake news!

Eloise posted:

wenger2015 posted:

Just noticed a news item suggesting  Blair wants to work for Trump as a middle east ambassador, possibly the middle east is the best place for him? 

A news item which is denied ... that would be an example of fake news!

Apparently their have already been meetings between Blair and Trumps son?

Unless Blair was auditioning for the apprentice USA....

wenger2015 posted:

Eloise posted:

wenger2015 posted:

Just noticed a news item suggesting  Blair wants to work for Trump as a middle east ambassador, possibly the middle east is the best place for him? 

A news item which is denied ... that would be an example of fake news!

Apparently their have already been meetings between Blair and Trumps son?

Unless Blair was auditioning for the apprentice USA....

Well Blair has not denied the meeting.  But they've taken a meeting and created a fiction around it.  That's pretty much the definition of Fake News.

Coming back to the Labour issue TB was clever in that he formed the 'new labour' which was basically Tory principles or ideas shrouded in Socialist blanket.  This was a very effective concoction because for the ordinary person in the street they could see that labour could work in practice and still help the others in society instead of just Tory principles and two fingers to the poor or disadvantage. Before TB labour was all about Socialism with dangerous left wing policies in bed with  Unions, will lavish help to all the 'disadvantage, minorities, throw good money after bad, borrow money, and the thought of saving money, making money, running a tight ship was simply not in vogue and not really socialist.  TB to me seemed a very able politician to come from labour.  If I did not know he was a labour  he seemed very Tory like!  With Corbyn I really don't know what he stands for apart that he seems to be a stooge for the unions?  With the European issue and vote he was so quiet, it seems the SNP took over that role, all I know about him is despite pressures he refuses to back down.  If a leader is effective then people for him and against him and the nuetrals basically knows what he or she stands for and with Corbyn I really don't think that the average person in the street knows his policies or general political direction?

Jeremy Corbyn has said that he believes Labour could win a snap election.

This is what the BBC reported Corbyn said in response to Stephen Hawkins suggestion that Corbyn should step down as Leader of the Labour Party.

Given Brexit and Trump, I suppose Corbyn has a point ?

Don Atkinson posted:

Jeremy Corbyn has said that he believes Labour could win a snap election.

This is what the BBC reported Corbyn said in response to Stephen Hawkins suggestion that Corbyn should step down as Leader of the Labour Party.

Given Brexit and Trump, I suppose Corbyn has a point ?

Corbyn would hardly say he thought he'd lose it!

Brexit and Trump were populist movements. Not sure Corbyn is likely to generate that sort of fervour.

Bruce

I think Trump's election success was in part due to the people's disillusionment with the 'establishment' and that he promised lots of things that many among the electorate want (like creating lots of jobs) without explaining how he would make it all work.  I'm not sure that Corbyn and Labour - remember this would be about electing a government, not just a head of government -  would be seen as sufficiently 'new'.  Nor in a UK election campaign, would Corbyn get away with making similar promises without being forced to explain the 'how'. Finally, I'm not at all sure that the UK electorate are so disillusioned with the current party in power to want to take such a gamble.

According to one of the latest polls, labour are now 19% behind the Conservatives.....

Can it actually get any worse for labour? 

Yes, they could win something with Corbyn and prolong the agony, or, even worse, win an election with him and cause chaos.  For the first time ever I would not want to see Labour in power.  Sad times. 

wenger2015 posted:

According to one of the latest polls, labour are now 19% behind the Conservatives.....

Can it actually get any worse for labour? 

Corbyn could eat too much at an Islington mueslifest and spontaneously explode. That would be bad. Or as Trump would say, BAD. 

dayjay posted:

Yes, they could win something with Corbyn and prolong the agony, or, even worse, win an election with him and cause chaos.  For the first time ever I would not want to see Labour in power.  Sad times. 

No need to worry dayjay.

a) With  a fixed-term Parliament there would be a lot of things to shift to enable the Gov to dissolve Parliament and they have too many things on their "to do" list this month !!

b) I suppose the Gov "could" engineer a Motion of no Confidence and then deliberately "win" that motion and hence be forced to resign. (we live in strange times). But why bother, they probably have a large enough majority to cope with half a dozen turncoats.

c) If a General Election took place within the next 3 months, my guess is that the Conservatives would win with a stonking majority and Labour would loose about half its seats, all because of Jeremy !

d) Predicting today the situation towards the end of Brexit is difficult. If the Gov does well, and Jeremy is still "Jeremy" and at the helm of Labour, I don't see Labour winning an election for a generation. If the Gov make a hash of Brexit, and Jeremy is on the Back-benches where he belongs as an experienced professional protester, then I see a possibility for Labour, providing they can find a strong, charismatic leader..........( perhaps I should put that one in the Best Jokes thread !!)