Posts by Rich Lock
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: On youthful indiscretions, in reply to Michael.Higgins,
Ashcroft [has] a rich man's sense of entitlement that cannot allow him to countenance not getting his own way
Spoilt rich prick finds his money can't buy him something: throws toys. In other news, dog bites man. More at 10.
-
Hard News: On youthful indiscretions, in reply to Don Christie,
For me the real story is Ashcroft using his money to try and pervert politics..
Yeah. The sources (ashcroft and the mail) make this interesting. The UK Labour party might currently be in disarray, but I'm wondering if we're seeing the start of some cracks on the other side. Jeremy Corbyn might not be as unelectable as all that if the other option is a return to mid-90's tory sleaze.
-
Hard News: On youthful indiscretions, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
Up to a point, Russell. But it’s more than a little eyebrow-raising seeing it on Twitter from people who’d be a lot more sceptical if The Daily Mail was publishing allegations Jeremy Corbyn fucked his dinner at a union conference. Especially when the source was a Labour poo-bah with a well-known (and admitted) axe to grind and bury in Corbyn’s head. Or, a little closer to home, every new round in The Herald's endless campaign to drive Len Brown's penis out of office.
Well, I may be somewhat biased, but I'm going to respectfully disagree with you there. As someone pointed out on twitter, one of the notable things about this is that the entire population of the UK seems to have gone 'yep, that seems like something he'd do'. His own Bullingdon background is playing against him hard. And the source (right-wingers nominally on his side) doesn't do anything to dispell that. Whereas you'd have to come up with something pretty bizarre and backed up with solid-concrete evidence to actually form a signal distinguishable from the endless white noise of the smear machine currently aimed at Corbyn. Evidence of a drug-fuelled orgy with a bunch of young lefties back in the '70's would probably have the effect of turning him from the inhuman trotskyite monster he's currently painted as into an actual person, and give him a poll bump.
-
I read 'into thin air' a few years back, and for all the criticism that's been levelled at it, I thought it did an exceptionally good job of getting the issues and problems over to a lay audience.
That's far easier to do in a text format. I haven't seen the film, so I'll tread cautiously, but given the criticisms you've outlined, I wonder if it fails slightly in that respect: those that know (like yourself) will pick up on things that will fly straight over the heads of those that don't.
-
Some just hate team sports and will never enjoy them, and yet might have a lot to gain from physical training of a more individual kind.
Indeed, it can be quite subversive....
-
Polity: In defence of the centre, in reply to David Hood,
I think affiliated is the unions. Supporters is the 3 pound public.
I'd sort-of unthinkingly assumed the Union votes would be as fully registered members. A friend who's a member told me before the election that there's a lot of top-down driven block-voting by the unions in these elections.
So if the LH column doesn't include the union vote, but is entirely individual core members, that actually makes things worse.
-
Polity: In defence of the centre, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
I'm really encouraged by Pagani's assertion that Corbyn will never be PM.
Mildly annoyed I didn't stick a lazy £20 on him becoming leader at the originally offered odds of 600/1. Maybe I'll check out what's being offered on him becoming PM.
I'll pop my Fisking hat on for a second, and take a couple of lazy swipes at that article.
Quoting the post-election Lord Ashcroft analysis: "Labour's loyal core vote", and her later assertion that the "Ashcroft analysis shows Corbyn has been elected by activists more concerned about validating their anger and feeling good about themselves".
Well, firstly I'd be vary wary of taking his stated conclusions at face value, as he's hardly a disinterested impartical bystander and has a vested interest in interpretations favouring a certain view. On Sunday after the results came out, David Cameron said something along the lines that there could no longer be consensus on core issues between the parties (i.e. austerity, mainly). So there's clearly a strong impulse among the Tories to pull Labour in close (to the right) to minimise resistance to their agenda. The Ashcroft analysis would be part of that - get the message out that Labour lost because they weren't 'Austerity' enough for the electorate, and drown out any other interpretation that doesn't fit that interpretation.
Secondly, the implication there (and the message that Establishment Labour seem desperate to believe) is that the three quid Johnny-come-latelys saw an oppportunity to vent their frustration/stir up mischief, and took it. But the figures don't bear that out.
UK Labour's official figures. Scroll down to the first table. The first column is full members - i.e. the fully paid-up 'loyal core vote' (the second and third columns are (I think) the three-quidders. Not sure of the difference between 'registered' and 'affiliated'). Full members pay a lot more, and although there was a minor post-election full membership sign-up surge in May/June (before the leadership contest got rolling), it's reasonable to assume that the vast majority of these are deeply committed long-termers.
Just looking at these members - Corbyn's vote share smashes any of the other candidates by over 2:1 (and he's nearly got more that all three of the other candidates combined).
So, Josie: if, as you say "Labour's base has indulged itself" (rather than leaving internal politics to the big boys and girls, and not worrying it's pretty little head), here's the question: why do you think that is? Why haven't they managed to convince their own core supporters - the people who are actually already clearly listening to them highly intently, to vote for them? Don't you think that's odd? Something worth exploring in more detail, perhaps? Rather than just dismissing them as a bunch of self-indulgent brats who won't take their medicine?
-
Hard News: A cog in the Mediaworks machine, in reply to Deborah,
is this a skill that journalism schools should be teaching now - how to turn a tweet by Lorde or Jemaine Clement into a 300-word article?
Yes indeed. I can what he meant to say ie. forging links with sources. It's just that those two missing words have the unfortunate consequence of implying that her practice is fraudulent, or per James' reading of it, at best manipulative.
Reckon I could spin a few hundred words of sub-Freudian analysis out of that choice of wording, for a couple of hundred bucks.....Any offers...? No...?
-
Polity: In defence of the centre, in reply to Rosemary McDonald,
I wonder what those defending the centre line will make of this?
Well, they'll either STFU and realise that the has an overwhelming mandate from the people they are supposed to be representing, and that they can like it or lump it.
Or they'll unite and conspire to undermine him at every opportunity in order to get back to business as usual at the earliest opportunity.
Head says one is far more likely than the other. Heart hopes otherwise.
-
Legal Beagle: Into the River/Interim Restrictions, in reply to BenWilson,
We were all a bit disappointed.
Well, as long as you all learned something in time for the closing monologue and end credits.