Paid Members BomberPat Posted December 18, 2020 Paid Members Share Posted December 18, 2020 Tribalism obviously exists, but it doesn't account for the amount of people who stopped voting Labour. We can't talk in one breath about tribalism and in the other about the fall of the Red Wall. I think it's, if anything, the least important measure of why people vote the way they do. Personality politics is a large part of it - most people don't have the time to read through manifestos and familiarise themselves with a candidate's position, they'll just vote for the person they think is most trustworthy or whatever their metric is. Whether people accept it or not, those decisions are hugely influenced by the media, and we have the most right-wing press in Europe. No Labour leader since Blair, and few before, have ever been given a fair shake by English newspapers. Since The Sun went Tory in '79, no party endorsed by them has lost a general election. Even if you're not reading the papers, they're visible in the shop, they inform the news that makes it on to TV and social media, and what the right have been very good at is controlling that narrative. Whether or not you think, for example, that Jeremy Corbyn was an antisemite, you couldn't escape the question - and that's all that matters; if the press can get the words "Corbyn" and "antisemitism" together in as many headlines as possible, the substance of it is immaterial. With Kier Starmer, him taking a knee is painted as sympathy for criminal elements and anti-British protesters, and the fringe of the right wing have tried to tie him to everyone from Jimmy Savile to ISIS. Again, the point isn't whether the story is accurate or not so much as whether they can create that association in people's heads. The right are just better at that sort of thing than we are. They're better at stories, language, narratives, they're better at appeals to emotion. The right-wing case for leaving the EU, for example, is easier to make than a centre-left argument for remaining a member, because it's a story, it's an appeal to emotion. You don't have to refer to data or legal arguments, you refer to abstract concepts of sovereignty, self-governance and nationalism, that the public can then interpret in whatever way most appeals to them, and convince themselves that you were talking directly to them all along. The frustrating thing is that we know all of this to be true. It used to piss me off hearing Corbyn supporters complain that they'd have done so much better if the press wasn't arraigned against them - I'm sure they would, but you knew going in that the press wasn't on your side. Any campaign strategy that fails to account for that is doomed to fail, so don't use it as an excuse after the fact. Labour - and the left across the western world - need to get better at communicating, and need to get much better at spreading their message outside of traditional media channels; and, increasingly, outside of new media as well, because the right in the Anglosphere seem to have a stranglehold on social media campaigning and disinformation too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Carbomb Posted December 18, 2020 Paid Members Share Posted December 18, 2020 100% agreed. A lot of what is behind the right's success is that the left have tried to reason people out of a position that they haven't been reasoned into; the only way the left will ever get them to listen is to utilise the same emotive language. Unfortunately, this would require quite attacking and vituperative language, I think. As with every economic downturn and the suffering that comes with it, people will always look for someone to blame and punish for their situation, and without fail the right-wing will aim that anger at immigrants/ethnic minorities/foreigners/gays/travellers. The left needed to redirect, and argue just as strongly and emotively that it was the establishment, the poshos, the neoliberalists, the financial sector, i.e. the people actually responsible for the economic crash who did it, but one of Corbyn's and Labour's major failings was that he refused point-blank to go on the attack. As you mentioned before, @BomberPat, he tried to win clean when the only way was to win dirty (although I think he also wrongly confused "going on the attack" with "doing personal"). The sad fact is that the reason the right are better at this sort of thing than the left is because the punch-down blame narrative is lazier, easier, and quicker to mobilise in people's minds, so the right can get hold of their narrative than the left can of theirs. This is particularly fatal when you know that there's an entire media establishment standing by to reinforce that situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patiirc Posted December 18, 2020 Share Posted December 18, 2020 22 minutes ago, BomberPat said: Whether people accept it or not, those decisions are hugely influenced by the media, and we have the most right-wing press in Europe. No Labour leader since Blair, and few before, have ever been given a fair shake by English newspapers. Since The Sun went Tory in '79, no party endorsed by them has lost a general election. Even if you're not reading the papers, they're visible in the shop, they inform the news that makes it on to TV and social media, and what the right have been very good at is controlling that narrative. Whether or not you think, for example, that Jeremy Corbyn was an antisemite, you couldn't escape the question - and that's all that matters; if the press can get the words "Corbyn" and "antisemitism" together in as many headlines as possible, the substance of it is immaterial. With Kier Starmer, him taking a knee is painted as sympathy for criminal elements and anti-British protesters, and the fringe of the right wing have tried to tie him to everyone from Jimmy Savile to ISIS. Again, the point isn't whether the story is accurate or not so much as whether they can create that association in people's heads. The right are just better at that sort of thing than we are. They're better at stories, language, narratives, they're better at appeals to emotion. The right-wing case for leaving the EU, for example, is easier to make than a centre-left argument for remaining a member, because it's a story, it's an appeal to emotion. You don't have to refer to data or legal arguments, you refer to abstract concepts of sovereignty, self-governance and nationalism, that the public can then interpret in whatever way most appeals to them, and convince themselves that you were talking directly to them all along. The frustrating thing is that we know all of this to be true. It used to piss me off hearing Corbyn supporters complain that they'd have done so much better if the press wasn't arraigned against them - I'm sure they would, but you knew going in that the press wasn't on your side. Any campaign strategy that fails to account for that is doomed to fail, so don't use it as an excuse after the fact. Labour - and the left across the western world - need to get better at communicating, and need to get much better at spreading their message outside of traditional media channels; and, increasingly, outside of new media as well, because the right in the Anglosphere seem to have a stranglehold on social media campaigning and disinformation too. Im sorry, but the press thing is utter baws People havent consumed information in traditional means for a long time and even as far back as 2010 it was being hailed as a digital election. I will try and dig out the reference points when I have time Novara, AAV, Canary and all of the other sites that get shares tweets, retweets cut and pastes and copies mean that the 'left' actually had ta bigger reach than the traditional print reach. Doorstepping proved people despised Corbyn, and 99.9 per cent of the time the reasons were naff all to do with what was in the papers. Shit leader, untrustworthy over Brexit, too much of a campaigner, untrustworthy in general and about his goals not the greater good and a million and one other things were given as reasons. Naff all to do with Silly hats, jigs before the Cenotaph and the never ending Anti Semitism (Actually all Isms) that flourished under his leadership, looking at you Terfs which started there amongst other things. Labour could have won with A N Other, with the same policies however as confirmed by the recent Labour report into things as well as Miliband's post election report Jeremy, much like Swanson went rougue, ignored everything put to them, fell out with the leadership team and the rest. It saddens me that people still buy into the sun wot done it or whatever else however mass news and information has changed and many people will see a cartoon, or an Meme or political thing on facey or Twitter or Insta or whatever and use that to form their bias and perceptions. Red wall is a different kettle of fish and basically Labour's assumption and continuation thereafter that the Redwall, would vote for them come what may as well as having a leader they detested meant that it was never going to happen. People in red wall seats were screaming this for years yet, managers and others within the CLP didnt listen to the canvassers and doorsteppers. It was certainly no shock that Blackpool and Burnley etc went blue apart from to those who had their fingers in the ears. It's not the message It's the fact that Labour doesnt know what it is , what it wants and is continually at odds with itself. It needs to split and regroup else nothing will change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Hannibal Scorch Posted December 18, 2020 Paid Members Share Posted December 18, 2020 3 minutes ago, patiirc said: Im sorry, but the press thing is utter baws People havent consumed information in traditional means for a long time and even as far back as 2010 it was being hailed as a digital election. I will try and dig out the reference points when I have time...... I think you post is utter baws if i'm honest. If you don't think people are influenced by print or TV media still, then I hate to be the barer of bad news. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Carbomb Posted December 18, 2020 Paid Members Share Posted December 18, 2020 3 minutes ago, patiirc said: Im sorry, but the press thing is utter baws People havent consumed information in traditional means for a long time and even as far back as 2010 it was being hailed as a digital election. I will try and dig out the reference points when I have time https://medialandscapes.org/country/united-kingdom/media/print#:~:text=Print newspapers are read by,percent between 2010 and 2018. Quote Print newspapers are read by 1 in 4 adults over 15 every day (13.6 million daily) and reach larger audiences weekly (24.9 million) and monthly (30.8 million). Print Circulation has fallen approximately 40 percent between 2010 and 2018. That's nearly half the population of the country. Total votes cast in 2019 was 32 million. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members BomberPat Posted December 18, 2020 Paid Members Share Posted December 18, 2020 2 minutes ago, Carbomb said: The sad fact is that the reason the right are better at this sort of thing than the left is because the punch-down blame narrative is lazier, easier, and quicker to mobilise in people's minds, so the right can get hold of their narrative than the left can of theirs. A lot of people think that there's more of a chance that they might become a billionaire than that they might become homeless or dependent on benefits (or, if they do become dependent on benefits, they make their excuses as to why they're different to those benefits claimants), so they're more likely to have sympathy for punch-down than punch-up, because the latter is attacking their potential. Another thing that I think we often fail to address is that one of the blind-spots of coming from any point of privilege is that you can get through life without ever having to actually examine that privilege or what it means. The problem with talking in terms of privilege is that it can sound accusatory, like you're telling someone that they've had it easy, particularly to someone who's never had to confront that before. The other side of that coin is that someone who's never addressed ideas of privilege probably will think that everyone has the same opportunities, that if you put the work in you'll get where you want to be - because to accept issues of institutional racism, sexism, or other inequalities, is on some level to accept that, as a white male, you've had opportunities that other people haven't, and that can be a hard thing to accept when so much of your own identity is wrapped up in how hard you've worked to get where you are. It's also why the right can do a very good job mobilising ideas of "cancel culture" by conflating any and all criticism with censorship, and why it's so easy for them to paint minorities calling for equality as "reverse racism", or wanting hand-outs. Because everyone has the same opportunities, so why do you want more? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Astro Hollywood Posted December 18, 2020 Moderators Share Posted December 18, 2020 (edited) 15 minutes ago, patiirc said: Im sorry, but the press thing is utter baws People havent consumed information in traditional means for a long time and even as far back as 2010 it was being hailed as a digital election. I will try and dig out the reference points when I have time Every election in the last decade has proved the exact opposite. We all think differently, trapped in our echo chambers of memes, but the vast majority of voters who got the Tories in and voted Leave are still quaffing down newspapers and watching the teatime news on a daily basis. It's why everyone was so shocked by the disparity of the results versus how it seemed online - "How could this be?! Owen Jones said Corbyn had it in the bag! And I've been posting some very funny Tweets about Boris which surely he can't have recovered from..." Meanwhile, everyone's parents are still off down the newsagent every day, and if they do see something online, it's a headline on Facebook from the Murdoch paper they read anyway. I mean Edited December 18, 2020 by Astro Hollywood Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members BomberPat Posted December 18, 2020 Paid Members Share Posted December 18, 2020 22 minutes ago, patiirc said: Doorstepping proved people despised Corbyn and how did they come to that decision, if it wasn't through how he was reported on in the media? The idea that The Canary had more reach than The Sun or The Mail is utterly preposterous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Devon Malcolm Posted December 18, 2020 Author Paid Members Share Posted December 18, 2020 Just broke my 10 year streak of not reading a pat post and have regretted it ever since. Thanks, Corbyn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Carbomb Posted December 18, 2020 Paid Members Share Posted December 18, 2020 3 minutes ago, BomberPat said: A lot of people think that there's more of a chance that they might become a billionaire than that they might become homeless or dependent on benefits (or, if they do become dependent on benefits, they make their excuses as to why they're different to those benefits claimants), so they're more likely to have sympathy for punch-down than punch-up, because the latter is attacking their potential. That's why any punch-up narrative needs to establish to its audience that the people being punched up at are hindering their future, not safe-guarding it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members LaGoosh Posted December 18, 2020 Paid Members Share Posted December 18, 2020 (edited) The amount of people banging on about Corbyn being an anti-semite because of rightwing reporting when they had never given a single solitary shit about antisemitism until it was election time was massively depressing. Then that they completely lost interest in antisemitism the second the election was over was even more depressing. Especially as my fiancee is Jewish and any kids we have will be Jewish this faux outrage from people really fucked me off. Edited December 18, 2020 by LaGoosh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Jazzy G Posted December 18, 2020 Paid Members Share Posted December 18, 2020 (edited) Just spotted this on my Facebook. Fantastic. Edited December 18, 2020 by jazzygeofferz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Carbomb Posted December 18, 2020 Paid Members Share Posted December 18, 2020 8 minutes ago, LaGoosh said: The amount of people banging on about Corbyn being an anti-semite because of rightwing reporting when they had never given a single solitary shit about antisemitism until it was election time was massively depressing. Then that they completely lost interest in antisemitism the second the election was over was even more depressing. Especially as my fiancee is Jewish and any kids we have will be Jewish this faux outrage from people really fucked me off. That's always been a difficult one. Corbyn is not an antisemite, but because of stupid political choices he's made in the past, it's been easy for Gentile right-wingers to stir up and weaponise what were most likely legitimate fears from the Jewish community. What has aggravated me about this is that the media were able to weaponise antisemitic racism to say Corbyn was an "existential threat to Jews" on the basis of stuff he said, but when it came to talking about the existential threat to other ethnic minorities on the basis of stuff the Tories actually did, they were near-silent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Jazzy G Posted December 18, 2020 Paid Members Share Posted December 18, 2020 It's the conflation of criticising some. Of the actions carried out by the regime in place in Israel with Antisemitism, isn't it? As if there aren't Jewish people in the world that also denounce what the Israeli government do sometimes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members BomberPat Posted December 18, 2020 Paid Members Share Posted December 18, 2020 There's a lot more to it than that, but I think the key point of @LaGoosh's post is that whether you believe Corbyn is antisemitic or not, or whether you believe he has knowingly or otherwise fostered an environment of antisemitism, the right wing who made a lot of noise about it hadn't shown much public concern about antisemitism before Corbyn, and it's disappeared almost entirely from the agenda post-Corbyn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.