The Afterword

Musings on the byways of popular culture

Menu

Navigation

You are here: Home / Forum / “Security threat”

Comments

  2. Maybe it’s not the same in other countries, but when UK newspapers use phrases like ‘an insider’ ‘unnamed source’ ‘an individual close to the investigation’ and so on it’s generally understood to be code for ‘We made this up.’

    If they are really working from genuine evidence, we’d have to face the fact that the Mail, Telegraph and Express were actually doing a good and thorough job – which would seem unlikely given the volume of stories that are obviously palpable nonsense intended simply to sell newspapers

    • Jeez Tahir, you’re hard work sometimes. Fortunately as we have no government here I have nothing to do today.

      Let’s start with:
      There is a strong suggestion that, for some stories, intelligence officials have themselves provided secret documents to journalists as part of what appears to be a campaign…. Nearly every story appeared in four papers — The Daily Telegraph, The Times, the Daily Mail, or The Sun.

      What do those four have in common?

      Quote marks here are from the article, not me:

      “senior serving general” 

      unnamed “senior intelligence source”

      It was not mentioned who passed this dossier to the Times.

       The Daily Telegraph carried a story built around the testimony of “ex-military chiefs” 

      the story was sourced to an individual “close to” the MI5 investigation

       The paper did not say where or how it had obtained these documents.

      The revelation was said to have come from “secret files obtained by The Sun”, but the paper did not state how it obtained them or from whom

      two anonymous senior government sources

      “a senior parliamentary source”,

      an unspecified source

      a “Whitehall official” divulged “the feeling” within the agency

      “senior figures in the military are concerned

      a “senior figure” told TheTimes.

      It quoted a “former permanent secretary”

      And my personal favourite:

      Also in February, the rightwing blog Guido Fawkes repeated the claim that the East German Stasi held a file on Corbyn. The story was widely picked up by the British press, but this time Germany’s Federal Commissioner for the Stasi Records issued an official rebuttal, effectively killing the story

      • Sounds more vague than England’s tactics in the 2002, 2006 and 2010 World Cups.
        “Try really hard,” “Give 150%,” “Play for the shirt,” “We deserve it,” from memory.

      • Ha Ha! Maybe it’s because I’m used to more ‘academic’ ways of arguing a point. I still don’t get what your main point is. But take it easy. Ignore me if necessary.

          • Which, the Maverick article? Strange assertion. It provides a myriad of links and references. Is this meant as some sort of dismissal of the article’s claims?

            • The article quotes former MI6 boss Richard Dearlove as saying Corbyn is a security threat. Here, in the interest of balance, he calls Theresa May’s Brexit deal a security threat
              https://news.sky.com/story/theresa-mays-brexit-deal-threatens-national-security-ex-mi6-chief-sir-richard-dearlove-warns-11603738

              And while it’s not strictly relevant, he also wrote to Tory party chairmen asking them to “Please ensure that your MP votes against this bad agreement and supports a sovereign Brexit on WTO rules, without payment of ransom.” That’s a very, very far right position.

              Now that you know this – it didn’t make it into the Maverick article – do you think this man should be used to illustrate anti-Corbyn bias by the intelligence services?

              • Yes, to put it mildly, given the sort of deal that Corbyn apparently favours, not to mention the foreign policy changes that he would favour. But my interest in the article is more general than the one person mentioned by you. Do you honestly think that singling out one ultra-right figure in this way invalidates the whole argument and all the evidence presented? Do you really find all this implausible? I would be amazed if you do.

                Kennard, BTW, is a fairly seasoned British journalist for Guardian, New Statesman, etc., if that carries any sort of weight. But really I wasn’t presenting the case for some sort of sensational disclosure, but rather just illustrating what anyone with a seriously transformative programme would be up against. Surely?

                • Well let’s single out some other names.

                  The same article also quoted the Labour peer and former navy First Sea Lord, Lord West of Spithead saying he might resign the party whip if Corbyn was not strong enough on defence. “I will have to wait and see what Labour’s defence policies are,” he said.

                  This was a week after Corbyn became leader. What else could he say? Would it be relevant to point out that, four years later, he hasn’t resigned the whip?

                  The former head of MI6 Sir John Scarlett joined the board of The Times newspaper in December 2010, the year after he left his position as chief of the Secret Intelligence Service. Corbyn personally led the campaign in parliament in 2004 to block Scarlett’s appointment as head of MI6 because of his links to the “dodgy dossier” which was used by Tony Blair to push for war in Iraq.

                  The guy is on the board of the newspaper and has a grudge against Corbyn because Corbyn thought he was complicit in lies that started a war.

                  So with these, and the fact that your source relies on selective quotes from sources which quote anonymous sources, do you think the problem here for Corbyn is the intelligence services, or something else?

                  • I made it clear that I thought it was a very broad set of establishment forces, of which intelligence would very likely be a part. After all, foreign policy implies shifting foreign alliances, in which intelligence is shared or not shared, etc.

                    I’m still trying to work out what the thrust of your problem with the article is, so I’m going to make bold to guess: I think you are suggesting that I think opposition by the intelligence services are a key reason why Labour are not doing better, when “everybody knows” (Leonard Cohen) it’s really JC’s personality. And I think this whole personality issue is bogus. I think a range of forces are against a transformational agenda, including the City of London, certain conservative and obscurantist religious forces, and yes, elements of the intelligence and military.

                    I may have guessed wrong about your implications, but correct me or leave me alone, why don’t you?

                    • My problem with the article is much simpler than you think. It’s a load of old bollocks and you shouldn’t be using it as evidence of anything. Bizarrely, it’s a left-wing conspiracy theory using right-wing conspiracy theories as its evidence base.

                      You and I both know that a former Guardian and New Statesman journalist would not in good faith report anonymous sources quoted in the Mail, Telegraph, Times and Sun – let alone the notoriously biased Dearlove and Scarlett – without questioning their veracity.

                      So I think he wants his readers to believe there is some kind of sinister force in opposition to Corbyn – and you might say there is, it’s the right-wing media, but that’s not even mentioned in the article. If he’s trying to make you believe there’s, as you put it, a ‘broad set of establishment forces’ out to get Jezza, you’d be a mug to accept that theory based on this evidence.

                    • Excuse me, but I’ve very carefully explained why large parts of the article are based on unreliable sources – which in any other scenario I think you would accept, as they’re tenuous unattributed quotes reported in the Murdoch press. Sometimes, on the balance of evidence, you have to say that the reporter’s intention is not to present a fair and balanced assessment, and that’s what I’m doing now.

                      I think you’re deliberately being abusive now in the hope that the mods will remove these comments and spare your blushes, so this will probably go too, and there’s no point in me adding anything else.

                    • The fact is you have knee jerked because you don’t like the substance of the article, which I find genuinely illuminating. You are hiding behind technicalities of journalism and at the same time refuse to countenance that the journalist in question is a professional of some standing (although, by implication, not compared to you). You do refuse to acknowledge both the relevance of the content and the professionalism of the journalist, don’t you? But you will slither out of answering this too …

                    • oh, we’re still going then. Yes, I do refuse to acknowledge both the relevance of the content and the professionalism of the journalist, for reasons I have carefully and patiently explained. I’m not sure what you mean by ‘technicalities of journalism’ but there are some very well established conventions around using reliable sources to back up your conclusions and I’m sure that you would, in any other circumstances, join me in casting doubt on the sources used here.

                      Have a look at the sources of the article – they’re listed below it. The Daily Mail is the source 11 times, Telegraph 7, Times 5, Express 2 Sun 2, Guido Fawkes 1, Guardian 0.

                    • As you wish. I promise only to be abusive and evasive to you in future. Have a nice evening.

                    • What’s your point Mr Sithere? I’ve been a political observer most of my life. So what’s rubbish?

  4. Get those excuses in early for why Labour lost the election – ie it’s got nothing to do with Corbyn’s lack of appeal and his more fanatical acolytes’ actions and everything to do with a shadowy conspiracy by the MSM, and the international Zionist conspiracy, of course.

    • Do you believe the MSM and certain pro-Israel lobby groups haven’t had any influence in putting voters off Corbyn? That their considerable efforts were not needed? Or do you simply believe no such efforts were made?

      • What would more intelligent sarcasm look like? Maybe I lack that more refined sense of English irony that JC says Zionists are missing, even though I’m not a Zionist. If you want intelligent responses, stop posting such feeble conspiracy-theory pieces. Corbyn looks like a busted flush but who knows, maybe the electorate will rally round at the last minute and vote for his his fabled “jobs-first Brexit”.

            • Can I ask why you are so interested in our election? You can’t vote in it but you keep posting about it. Nothing wrong with that of course, I am just interested.

              • Are you sure “nothing wrong with that”, I ask suspiciously?

                To me the answer is obvious. We have a leftist candidate standing against a rightwing one. Such contests, especially in the more economically advanced and influential countries are going to be vital in the future of the world to come. Although no doubt not of such monumental importance as “personality”. But still, for those of us who care about such things, of some importance at least.

  6. In a half-century of listening to people discuss politics, I have never heard or read exchanges like the above that have led to subsequent greater clarity and mutual understanding between the parties involved, though they have been very good at creating rancour. Another thing I have noted is that calling someone thick, bad, or otherwise hateful because they think differently is not persuasive in bringing them over to your side. heated “political arguments” are more likely to make people retreat to their positions of safety. is that their intent?

    • I’m pretty sure no one has ever changed their mind because of an internet political discussion, at least not publicly – once they’ve got through the denial phase (you’re all idiots or trolls) and the anger phase (you can all eff off) you hope they go away and think seriously about why everyone’s disagreeing with them. Or they just go away; that’s a good outcome too.

  7. Several Comments have been removed from this thread containing personal insults.

    If you can’t debate the topic without resorting to that then the thread will be closed. This isn’t the rest of the internet.

    Your helpful and slightly annoyed Mod team

  9. More typical MSM, Corbyn-baiting neo-liberal trolling from notorious right-wing rag the, er, New Statesman.

    “But the essential judgement that must be made is on Mr Corbyn himself. His reluctance to apologise for the anti-Semitism in Labour and to take a stance on Brexit, the biggest issue facing the country, make him unfit to be prime minister.”

    Like almost everyone I know, I think their preferred ballot option seems to be none-of-the-above.

    https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/election-2019/2019/12/leader-britain-deserves-better

  10. The problem is we are looking at a big Tory majority with a slim possibility of a hung parliament. I must read other outlets because almost every article I read attacks BJ’s character, with good reason. A lot of us are going to have to hold our noses and vote Labour just to stop him doing what the hell he pleases.

    I couldn’t access the article but is it about the same ‘deep state’ that is determined to get rid of Trump?

    • The headline is “How the UK military and intelligence establishment is working to stop Jeremy Corbyn becoming prime minister” and the standfirst is “Officials in the UK military and intelligence establishment have been sources for at least 34 major national media stories that cast Jeremy Corbyn as a danger to British security, new research shows.”

      The research is that someone googled ‘Corbyn+Security+Threat’ and copied a bunch of stuff from the Times, Telegraph and Mail. It doesn’t test the veracity of the anonymous sources or the right wing nut jobs that gave those famously fair-minded newspapers the information.

      If the article had been “Some newspapers are working to stop Jeremy Corbyn becoming prime minister” it might have had a point, but asking the reader to accept their garbage as truth in order to make a totally different allegation is just too weird to be believed.

    • There are other choices for those who can’t stomach either of the main contenders. I can’t so I am voting LD. I don’t think it will change who gets returned to parliament but I might be wrong and there might be many people who do the same and are pleasantly surprised by the outcome. I can but hope.

  11. As one who doesn’t waste too much time researching, reading or educating himself I can sort of speak for the majority of the voters on the upcoming election. Corbyn is unelectable for most and his failure to recognise why adds to his unelectability. On the two great issues facing him, antisemitism and Brexit he is ducking the big questions. That’s what will cost him the most votes. It’s widely reported on all mainstream channels using his actual words, coming from his face with apparent dis -interest. Thousands of words mostly unread by the majority of voters will not matter a jot in the final reckoning. Yours, Dave Amitri, voter, civilian and no agenda.

  12. Er, Jeremy Lenin was a fan of East Germany when the Stasi was watching those dangerous subversives, hippie eco types, punks, and teenage boys in Iron maiden t-shirts (see the Stasi museum in east Berlin). Has his advocacy and involvement with HAMAS and the IRA now been denied? There is a lot of this stuff in his background as a activist for ‘peace’ and otherwise, and a cynical mind would suggest it was not peace so much as a variety of SWP fronts he was involved with. Yes, i know Boris is a tool, it’s not hard to see, but Labour having a 70s agit-prop throwback is not great, either. Seems we have a choice between an idiot and a useful idiot. [I’ll get me coat.]

  13. As someone who has actually met the majority of the people in the country, even though I don’t live there, all I can say is it’s worse than you think. With a bit of luck there’ll be a hung parliament followed by a 2nd referendum then we remain and the two shithead leaders resign. And then I woke up.

  14. Well this has been quite a revealing exercise and I have been taken by surprise by the reaction to what I regard as an interesting, if not especially groundbreaking, article.

    While I accept the argument (who wouldn’t?) that the conservative press have been smearing Corbyn’s Labour, there is an aspect that gives plausibility to the central claim of the Kennard article. It is the fact that some of the articles mentioned cite particular individuals in the security establishment as sources, or even have individuals as signatories. I would imagine that if such stories were false the people concerned would be moved to issue denials. If such denials have been forthcoming then this could have been pointed out to me and I would have taken them into account.

    Instead what I got was an immediate “everybody knows” type of smug denunciation, which speaks volumes about the quality of debate surrounding this election and Brexit more generally.

    I would never have taken such an interest in British politics if it had been about business as usual. But the advent of Corbyn as Labour leader changed everything for me because this was someone who broke with the residual Thatcherism in mainstream politics (including in Labour), particularly the financialisation of the British economy and its social results. It also broke with the hated pseudo-progressivism of Tony Blair, whose responsibility for the horror of the Iraqi invasion and its grisly aftermath will be a matter of historical record. Not to be forgotten.

    It does not surprise me that the centre has fallen out of British politics — it is happening elsewhere too — OR that there is a widespread refusal to get behind an opposition to a rightwing insurgency if this is to be led by a genuine left-winger. In many ways the Corbyn phenomenon has surprised me by how far it has actually got.

    But I was taken aback to find the depth of feeling that would lead to such a knee-jerk reaction to what seems to me to be an article that just highlights something that I would expect, namely an establishment fight back. In other words I did not expect that here, on this blog. Clearly I miscalculated on that. The demonisation of the lefty has been swallowed whole and undigested, as evidenced by a number of the above comments. Others have been merely sniffy and superior in attitude . Well so be it.

    The period ahead is going to be turbulent politically, perhaps especially in Britain. I will be disappointed but not surprised by a Labour defeat in this election, which I will see as a setback for progress globally. There is still a chance it won’t happen, but only a small one now. In any event I don’t think that I will write any more about it on this blog.

    • Well Tahir, you’re not entirely alone on the blog.
      I honestly don’t have the energy or inclination to argue the toss about such matters on the AW.
      I’m not a particular fan of Corbyn, believing his programme would probably be better advanced by a slicker & intellectually sharper individual, but what cannot be denied by anyone with even an iota of UK political savvy is that he’s been subject to the most sustained character assassination & smear campaign in living memory. This is obviously to be expected & was always going to place him at a disadvantage in terms of electability. The depths to which its sunk & the gormlessness of many of those who have swallowed it has taken even this old cynic aback. Critical faculties seem at an all time low in 2019.
      Regarding the article in question, it seems evidently plausible, even if there are ‘personal beefs’ at play as well.
      The question that really needs asking, is why would such reactionary individuals & bodies NOT do exactly what is being alleged?
      It’s what they do. It’s what they’re there for. The notion of a Corbyn led government – that’s an essentially social democratic/ democatic socialist one ( as opposed to the Pol Pot/ Joe Stalin tribute act it is portrayed as) is deeply unsettling & irritating to a lot of very well heeled & powerful people who (surprise, surprise) are not universally progressively minded, & don’t want their investments buggered up. They have pals in ‘spooky’ places, who are seldom idle.
      You’d never require tanks in Whitehall if you can convince a sizable chunk of the electorate that the advocate of an anti austerity, non neo liberal approach is a blend of Bin Laden, Himmler & Jimmy Savile.
      This isn’t David Icke flat earth stuff, this is the M.O. of how western democracies actually operate, & if you’re an adult & you think it isn’t, you really haven’t been paying attention.

      • “…In many ways the Corbyn phenomenon has surprised me by how far it has actually got.”

        Me too. I am seeing policies that I have always supported now writ large by Corbyn’s Labour Party and, slender though it may be, there’s a chance it might even be voted for.

        His leadership style perplexes me because I *do* want to be inspired and Corbyn doesn’t do that. He has missed so many open goals as well – that I have to conclude that he thinks and operates differently.

        When he became leader I saw him being harangued by reporters as he walked down a street. He just calmly walked on in silence – not playing their game. I did like that.

    • That “hated pseudo-progressivism of Tony Blair” democratised society, massively increased spending on health, education and science and shifted wealth from the haves to the have-nots. That’s real changes to real lives.

      Corbyn and his cult followers will achieve nothing except the possible (I’m being positive here) destruction of the Labour Party. The thing is, talking isn’t the same as doing.

    • Tahir I wish I could say I found this thread revealing but unfortunately it just proved the old adage that you can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into. Today you will see the Daily Mail report of Corbyn’s unfortunate white lie about the Queen’s Speech, and you will, quite rightly, dismiss it as evidence of the Mail’s bias, while conveniently forgetting that 24 hours ago you were defending that paper’s journalistic rigour with all your might.

      It’s a shame your abuse had to be deleted because it was extraordinary how you kept doubling down on the personal attacks as the evidence against your case mounted up. I don’t mind the abuse but it was “ignore me’ and ‘leave me alone’ that I found most disturbing – I read those as you saying you shouldn’t be challenged. And you call us superior…

      Finally, a point about conflation and extrapolation. You got it wrong yesterday but that doesn’t mean you always get it wrong. I argued against a piece of shit journalism about Corbyn, but that doesn’t mean I’m always against Corbyn. I’ve told you several times that I’ll be voting for him. It should be possible, in the remaining sane corners of the internet, to disagree on one issue without one party extrapolating this to mean you disagree on everything.

      And just because a few other people pointed out the weakness of your defence here, it does not follow that “the demonisation of the lefty has been swallowed whole and undigested, as evidenced by a number of the above comments.” I think you know this really.

  16. A party where the Shadow Home Sec thinks that on balance Mao did more good than harm. A man responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people, who makes Stalin and Hitler look like rank amateurs.

    Yeah. There’s no way I’d vote for that kind of idiocy.

    • To be fair I agree with much of Tahir’s polemic. I like to read his opening points, ahead of wearying of the responses that then arise, which puts me back in my box of thinking a music blog is probably not the best place to discuss politics. My conclusions, after reading this bruising thread, is that none of us actually really know what we think we know. Or the majority of us, there seeming to be only a couple of folk who add experiential opinion rather than the propaganda we read and believe in rags, right or left, not that there are many of the latter. I think we have been force fed so much misinformation over the years that it has begun to feel like a truth. So we resort to opinion based thereupon and fall to blows.
      Here’s an idea: rather than beating each other up, how about a title fight, by podcast, between Tahir and Chiz, who seems to suggest a more informed background to his arguments? Of course, I don’t see it really happening or necessary, but, hey, it would be good.
      O, and, btw, remember what Oysterband used to say on their record sleeves during the Thatcher years: “Skin Up and Vote Labour”. I think they mean thicken your skin up, of course, as responsible adults, but, forgive me, as a site that seems, broadly on average, to be leftward leaning, why is there so much noise against doing so? There seems a united hatred of Johnsons shower, yet we tippy toe around finding reasons to not contemplate the alternative option. So, you don’t like Corbyn, do you like his party policies? There is a FB trope going around about the daftness of rejecting life saving surgery because you don’t like the doctor, a very apt parallel, methinks.
      Right, that’s me, back in my bunker.

      • oh fuck no, a podcast would be deadly. It would be a lot of Canary or Squawkbox headlines repeated as if they were holy writ, followed by long silences while I googled some facts. It’s been a feature of this election that Johnson’s lies have gone unchallenged because the interviewer didn’t have the rebuttal to hand. It’s easy to make stuff up on the spot, but disproving it takes a bit of research.

    • In my head the Queen’s speech takes place in the morning. That’s because Christmas Dinner is scheduled for immediately after it. Dinner is lunchtime, therefore 12 noon, therefore the speech is in the am. Simple.

      *No. I don’t watch it either. Too boring*

          • Why he couldn’t just admit to not watching The Queen’s Speech.
            Terrified of losing the royalist vote, has there ever been a more unlikely royalist?

            • The line between Xmas day morning and afternoon has been a blur for me ever since I attained adulthood.
              Breakfast fryup (essential) sometime around 10-11am and then a blank until gathering at the table for Xmas dinner, which used to be after the Queen’s speech in the days when we bothered with it. The afternoon didn’t really start until we staggered away from the table to vegetate in front of the TV.

              I don’t actually give a shit if Corbyn was fibbing about when he watched the Queen’s speech. I imagine he would make a point of watching it at some point, Just in case there was something in it that he’d be asked to comment on.
              These days, if I watch it at all (doubtful unless I hear afterwards that it was interesting), it will be on catchup, like 99% of the population.

                • Does anyone go for those Boxing Day walks which the papers also seem to think are traditional? And midnight mass, It’s a Wonderful life on TV, playing charades, wearing Christmas jumpers, inviting all the neighbours round for a drink, mistletoe, overcooking something and a family row.

                  Nothing wrong with any of this, of course, but it mainly seems to exist in Richard Curtis films. The only thing that seems a universal tradition is going back to work and having the How was your Christmas – Well, quiet, you know – Yes same for us – conversation.

                    • Occasional rows. The last one was 2 years ago when my drunk neice embarrassed herself in front of her young daughter.
                      No jumpers on me, but my nephews have been known to sport them.
                      Boxing Day walk the year before last. First time ever and quite enjoyable.
                      Midnight Mass never ever.
                      Neighbours round for drinks, not since early childhood.
                      No absolute overcooking disasters, but a few near-misses. Plenty of forgotten veg/stuffing/gravy incidents.
                      “How was your Christmas..?”-es are an annual feature in the aftermath, ever since I started working for a living/moved out of the family home.

                • One can binge-watch all the seasons I believe. They say it’s rather samey although the ageing of the main character is impressive. I remember seeing the famous Annus Horriblis episode but found it rather disappointing. *SPOILER ALERT* You’re supposed to feel sorry for her but when her castle was burning but I just thought, well you’ve got at least two other sizeable palaces left to live in and a ship. The Crown is better I hear.

  18. Just an observation – one tabloid front page with a carefully chosen lurid full page freeze frame of JC looking like a dodgy uncle at a jumble sale will do far more damage to his election prospects than an article quoting an entire room full of right-wing nutjobs who once overheard a spook ranting about Jezza while getting a green curry at a Thai kitchen bar in Camden Lock.

    Such is the ignorant gullibility of a frighteningly large proportion of the Great British Public.

  19. I held my nose in 2005 and voted for that lying, murdering bastard Tony Blair because I wanted to stop the Tories. I held my nose in 2016 and voted to remain in the EU even though I know it is corrupt and anti-democratic because the alternative would be (and will be) far worse.

    Some people are too dainty to hold their nose, and demand absolute moral purity from whoever they vote for. Good luck with that. Good luck to all of us. We’re going to fucking need it.

    • In all my long life of political observation and panic in America there has been much holding of noses, mostly , but not always, my own and look where it’s got us. You are right though. Opposition parties working together, tactical voting – if only such a thing was possible.

  20. Anyway – if anyone is interested in what quality journalism actually looks like – and by this point I know everyone’s thoroughly bored with me explaining what’s wrong with that Maverick article – have a look at this https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/29/rightwing-thinktank-conservative-boris-johnson-brexit-atlas-network

    Five journalists, links that mostly lead to a direct source rather than a report of a report, and as far as I can see absolutely no mention of ‘anonymous sources’ or the many variations on that I listed above.

  22. Tahir, you failed to provide any evidence of the Main Point. You’ve had two days to do so. It’s a shame it’s ended this way but you can probably see why it had to.

  30. Oh I see a more important topic: correct grammar!
    Well I been told to watch my Ps and Qs before today.
    Even as a university professor I didn’t really do that.
    Continued to despise it, really.
    Fucking Ps and Qs!
    I always preferred: Fuck yous (ha ha!)

    • You give these ultra- leftys like Tahir and Moose the most precious thing you have – your democratically- mandated vote – and the fuckers call you ‘blue’ in return. A week from now they’ll be blaming us for why they lost an unloseable race.

  37. Aaaaanyway the futility of this entire thread is currently been live-reenacted on Twitter where people are responding to Johnson’s dog whistle call for restrictions on the immigration of people of colour.

    Channel 4 posted a clip and everyone went bonkers at Johnson’s blatant racism

    Then C4 pulled the clip, and explained that although they had subtitled it ‘colour’ he had actually said ‘talent’

    Now people are listening to it and hearing whichever version suits their point of view.

    Some are saying that ‘people of talent’ isn’t a phrase at all, and others are posting evidence of Johnson using it before.

    There’s a fairly large contingent suggesting that the clip’s been doctored to make it sound like ‘talent’.

    Some of those who flew off the handle at ‘colour’ but now think it’s ‘talent’ have now deleted their previous messages, and some haven’t

    Some admit he didn’t say ‘colour’, but point out it’s the sort of thing he would say, just not on this occasion

    And some are saying that controlling immigration of ‘people of talent’ is racist anyway.

    So, yeah. That’s why we can’t do politics any more.

  39. Can we just accept that BoJo is an unprincipled untrustworthy, untalented git unsuited for anything but right-wing politics, Jo Swinson will always abandon what principles she has as long as she’s on the right side for her and Jeremy Corbyn is not making a very good job (so far) of leading a party that he probably never dreamed he’d be leading.
    “When times are weird, the weird go pro.”

  40. I suspect we over-emphasise the impact of the media and also doubt that the machinations of the security services ( if they exist) have much impact. I live in an area with very many former Labour voters. They are, by and large, socially conservative, lots of ex-services people, a lot of support for Brexit and not keen immigration. My understanding it that reflects a fair number of places outside of the larger metropolitan centres.

    Their take on JC seems largely influenced by things he has said or done. They don’t like his past support for the Republican cause, they didn’t like his response to Salisbury; they don’t like what he says about immigration and they don’t think he wants the hard Brexit many of them favour. For sure the media won’t have done anything to disabuse them of this, but in the examples I have quoted his stance seems pretty clear. Rightly or wrongly, they just don’t like it.

    Its unfortunate, but to use a rather clumsy analogy, it’s a bit like when a football manager Is said to have ‘lost the dressing room’. It doesn’t matter what he does, people just won’t listen.

    • I am strongly disagree, Ern. I think the role of newspapers and telly in shaping public opinion is humongous, though people may not acknowledge or realise it.

      • He does, however, get to the nub of the problem with Corbyn. Many traditional Labour voters, typically working class, typically outside of London, don’t like him for the reasons ernie lists, to such a degree they are willing to cut off their own noses to spite their face and vote Tory.

        I watched a bit of the debate last night. Corbyn, generally, made more sense than Johnson, except on Brexit but BJ came across best. He seemed more human, even though his policies are more inhuman. BJ has likeability, whereas JC doesn’t. In short, yes, personality is a crucial factor.

        My impression is that this time, compared to 2017, there hasn’t been a Corbyn bounce nor a May collapse. Then, JC seemed a warmer person than TM. I fear a very workable Tory majority.

        • People love Boris. He’s really got a lot of people fooled. For now. Majority or no majority, things are going to get very rough for him over a five-year parliament – actually having to work for the first time in his life, for one thing – and he will end up despised by the party and the people who now support him. That’s something to look forward to at least.

          In the meantime, the sheer viciousness of a post-Brexit Tory government towards anybody who isn’t fairly well-off is going to make the later Thatcher years look like Swedish social democracy. Buckle up, suckers.

          • But what do you do, Moose, if Corbyn’s brand of 1970’s throwback socialism gets rejected a second time? Do you carry on blaming the media, the Russians, Cambridge Analytica, voter registration fraud, constituency boundaries, Tony Blair, Neo-libtards, centrists, red Tories, Laura Kuenssberg and your blue-rinse grandmother?

            I agree that even if Johnson gets a majority he’s going to have a rough ride and won’t last long – but surely the opposition has to change tactics, starting from next Friday, and part of that must be to try and win back the people you’ve spent the last five years alienating.

      • Locally, it perhaps didn’t help when a few years back JC attended a rally of local government candidates.. He had spent the morning canvassing in and around Bristol, before travelling to the south coast for the rally. Sadly there wasn’t time to visit the people on the estate 50 yards away. A ward in the poorest 10% nationally. Full of the people I described above. In any event, the media didn’t report on this either way, save for a picture somewhere of him doing the canvassing in a part of Bristol that looked remarkably like a London Borough. People were left to draw their own conclusion. The ward no longer has a Labour councillor on the unitary authority. In fact, there is only one in a parliamentary seat held by Labour as recently as 2010.

        • There are a couple of estates in Bristol where 50 yards distance might be considered rashly courageous, especially if you plan on leaving your vehicle. Where was it that you say was so close to his route but so far away in terms of economic deprivation?

    • I think a credible Labour candidate’s could have tackled the controversies much better, although I am not sure anti-semitism, for example, has been important for many potential voters. I think a better leader would have cut through the noise. They could still have followed a left wing agenda. People think a rejection of Corbyn is a rejection of the left. They are not the same thing. I do not see the need though to have such ideaology-driven policies like re-nationalising everything in sight, the practicalities and cost don’t justify the end result. What’s most important is taxation to fund services and NHS. A lot of this other stuff alarms people and seems reckless. Corbyn and McDonnell also represent an outmoded form of leftism that has such negative associations for anyone who recalls the failings of the left that helped Thatcherism to emerge. Did the media attacks on Corbyn stop an otherwise successful campaign as intended? Hard to see that it would have been so very different without them.

      • I haven’t seen any announcement that constitutes the nationalisation of “everything in sight”; can you tell me exactly where I might find such a policy statement?

        This last week we’ve seen one dangerously damaged individual allowed to go free and murder people, and another, a violent rapist, has been lost to the authorities and capable of rampaging across the country unstopped for weeks. These failings in the criminal justice system have all been immeasurably aided by the inadequacies of a prison and probation service that has been stretched so thin you can read a forged tenner through it. Mostly as a result of Grayling and other Tory incompetents divvying responsibilities out to pals and party donors for the lowest bid. It’s hard to see any argument for the privatisation thereabouts to continue. Unless you know better, in which case I’m all ears.

        • This is a thunderingly dull observation to make – sorry Vulpes – but if in the same breath you say “Can you tell me exactly where I might find such a policy statement?” and “Mostly as a result of Grayling and other Tory incompetents divvying responsibilities out to pals and party donors” it’s possible that you’re asking of a higher burden of proof from Diddley than you’re prepared to offer yourself.

          • Not at all old chum.

            I’m roundly blaming a host of Tory toads responsible – and naming one particular idiot – for a process that has taken years to erode the efficacy of the prison & probation services by a process of slow strangulation.

            DF’s talking about an election manifesto, something current, detailed and explicit, and rather more succinct in nature than ten years of neglect shared out across a multitude of Tory numpties.

            If there’s a statement present that posits the “nationalisation of everything in sight”, all I want is a page & paragraph number.

            I don’t think my rumblings are any more thunderingly dull than many other contributions hereabouts. Sorry if you find them tiresome. I’m sure you’re not just anxious to find someone else to find fault with and bait, now that Tahir has been kicked into the weeds.

            • No no you misunderstand me – I was saying MY comment was very dull, not yours. I’d apologise for being so petty as to point out that Diddley’s hyperbole is no better or worse than yours – and everyone’s entitled to a little poetic licence now and then – but I already have apologised, see above.

    • I find the FB piece quite poetic in places, as in his description of Gove:

      In any other era Gove would be seen as a uniquely unctuous, unlikable and profoundly talentless figure. Now he’s hardly even remarkable. Gove – looking like someone took all the flesh out of a serial killer’s drains and forced it into some brogues; like Davros fell out of his Dalek; like a rushed cartoon of a horny snail – is somehow not the worst person in cabinet, or even his own marriage.

      • “The alternative is living in a timeline where, because Johnson looks like something you’d keep your pyjamas in, in a couple of years you’ll be queuing for bread in an abandoned Aldi car park, while a voice on the tannoy tells you tonsillitis is a symptom of ideological impurity”

Leave a Reply