What exactly is Jeremy Corbyn's plan?

Myranda

Garthy said:

Myranda said:

Garthy said:

monquixote said:

The difference is the numbers are going down consistently and the rate of decline is increasing.

The presses will still be rolling in 4 years time. Their plant in Broxbourne is about to be kitted out with a spangly new inserting department, they just wouldn't spend £50m on this if they were going to close the papers.

But if 200,000 people are reading it, it won't matter if they use magic subliminal messages which are 100% effective - as they won't be reaching enough people to significantly influence the votr

Which brings us back around to JPFramp's point that the Sun backs who they think will win but either way those presses will still be producing copy.

Am I in the Matrix? Are you the black cat? What's happening in this thread? 

Heartfeltdawn

monquixote said:

I'm not disputing that, but in the 80's and 90's the Sun had a circulation of 4m, in 2010 it was 3m and 2015 it was 1.8m, by 2020 it's going to be what? 0.5m if they haven't pulled it from the shelves by then. 

People are far more likely to be influenced by social media, or who knows what, but it won't be print media.

I agree that the Sun doesn't dominate in the way it used to but the importance of newspapers backing your campaign is still there. The 2012 USA election saw Obama claim 51% of the vote versus 47%; the EU referendum was about 4%; 2010 General Election had 7% between red and blue, 2015 GE was 6.5%. Small percentages really matter and even more so when you're in a real multi-party political system as we are now. Being backed by a Murdoch newspaper might give you that 7% that takes you to victory. So the numbers a newspaper influences is smaller compared to the 80s and 90s but the numbers they do influence are just as important. 

What would social media be without print media? Really empty. Countless websites would be rendered worthless if they weren't ripping off the print media world. Print media has similar problems to the music world: how to make people pay for the product they're viewing. The Grauniad approach of free access has left them staring into the financial abysss, hence the current begging campaign for members to join for £5 a month. The Telegraph had a disaster with Jason Seiken coming in. The Sun tried the paywall and then dropped it and are now putting their hopes on a financial revival through Sun Bets. 

There are still plenty of people who want quality articles. Post-referendum, the Times lowered its paywall. When they put it back up again, it triggered a big spike in people taking out subscriptions. It's been mooted within News UK that this could be a model for the future, periodically lowering the paywall to get some people into the website and to see if another spike in subs occurs. 

Myranda

Heartfeltdawn said:

monquixote said:

I'm not disputing that, but in the 80's and 90's the Sun had a circulation of 4m, in 2010 it was 3m and 2015 it was 1.8m, by 2020 it's going to be what? 0.5m if they haven't pulled it from the shelves by then. 

People are far more likely to be influenced by social media, or who knows what, but it won't be print media.

I agree that the Sun doesn't dominate in the way it used to but the importance of newspapers backing your campaign is still there. The 2012 USA election saw Obama claim 51% of the vote versus 47%; the EU referendum was about 4%; 2010 General Election had 7% between red and blue, 2015 GE was 6.5%. Small percentages really matter and even more so when you're in a real multi-party political system as we are now. Being backed by a Murdoch newspaper might give you that 7% that takes you to victory. So the numbers a newspaper influences is smaller compared to the 80s and 90s but the numbers they do influence are just as important. 

What would social media be without print media? Really empty. Countless websites would be rendered worthless if they weren't ripping off the print media world. Print media has similar problems to the music world: how to make people pay for the product they're viewing. The Grauniad approach of free access has left them staring into the financial abysss, hence the current begging campaign for members to join for £5 a month. The Telegraph had a disaster with Jason Seiken coming in. The Sun tried the paywall and then dropped it and are now putting their hopes on a financial revival through Sun Bets. 

There are still plenty of people who want quality articles. Post-referendum, the Times lowered its paywall. When they put it back up again, it triggered a big spike in people taking out subscriptions. It's been mooted within News UK that this could be a model for the future, periodically lowering the paywall to get some people into the website and to see if another spike in subs occurs. 

It's already hitting less than 3% of voters... Even if the editor invests in. Mind control tech so all of them vote a specific way that's 3% now... 

By 2020 at this same increasing rate of readership drop off it may be less than 1%. There's no guarantee any of those 1% will vote, or vote the way Murdoch wants... 

Print media's affect on the vote is dying... 

Sky News on the other hand... Or the various other Murdoch empire stuff... 

UnclePsychosis

I am beginning to think that Corbyn isn't just incompetent, I think he's actually dangerous.

Apparently he plans to outline his policy of "removing tax relief for drugs research from pharmaceutical companies". Presumably he thinks we can just replace their work with homeopathy (something he believes in).

Of course this has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Owen Smith used to work for Pfizer.

Heartfeltdawn

Myranda said:

It's already hitting less than 3% of voters... Even if the editor invests in. Mind control tech so all of them vote a specific way that's 3% now... 

By 2020 at this same increasing rate of readership drop off it may be less than 1%. There's no guarantee any of those 1% will vote, or vote the way Murdoch wants... 

Print media's affect on the vote is dying... 

Sky News on the other hand... Or the various other Murdoch empire stuff... 

How is that 3% calculated? 46 million eligible voters divided by the circulation of the Sun? If so, then it's missing out on many other factors in terms of defining readership and therefore influence. Print media's sales drop off but those who access the website online are still influenced by the output of print media in the online form. 

Sky News has clearly moved to a more hardline typical Murdoch stance since the election. The launch of their QT-style show was a pointed indicator of that. It'll be interesting to see what happens with Fox now Roger Ailes has been launched off. 

p90fool

Heartfeltdawn said:

Myranda said:

It's already hitting less than 3% of voters... Even if the editor invests in. Mind control tech so all of them vote a specific way that's 3% now... 

By 2020 at this same increasing rate of readership drop off it may be less than 1%. There's no guarantee any of those 1% will vote, or vote the way Murdoch wants... 

Print media's affect on the vote is dying... 

Sky News on the other hand... Or the various other Murdoch empire stuff... 

How is that 3% calculated? 46 million eligible voters divided by the circulation of the Sun? If so, then it's missing out on many other factors in terms of defining readership and therefore influence. Print media's sales drop off but those who access the website online are still influenced by the output of print media in the online form. 

Don't forget the works' canteen aspect either, over 100 people a day read the half-dozen or so tabloid papers in ours.

Sales might be waning  but we're not in some kind of age of enlightenment, but I've seen no change in the opinions of the people I've worked with over the last 35 years.

Heartfeltdawn

p90fool said:

Don't forget the works' canteen aspect either, over 100 people a day read the half-dozen or so tabloid papers in ours.

Sales might be waning  but we're not in some kind of age of enlightenment, but I've seen no change in the opinions of the people I've worked with over the last 35 years.

Works canteen, cafes, buses, all sorts. I can think of the restaurant I worked in that received daily copies of the Mail, the Times, and the i with each issue read by, say, at least 10 people per day. Some publications do look into readership beyond circulation. The London Evening Standard for example gives circulation figures of 900,000 and readership figures of 1.6 million. 

http://www.metroclassified.co.uk/productsandaudiences/esdatadistribution

Now if the LES can claim readership that is close to double its circulation despite being a geographically-specific publication of limited availability elsewhere in the country, then I reckon the Sun could easily claim a readership double that of the circulation. With circulation of around 1.75 million, readership could be estimated at 3.5 million. 46 million eligible voters at the last election, turnout of 66% meaning about 31 million voted. So a Sun readership of 3.5 million represents 11.2% of the 2015 General Election turnout. This goes back to what I said earlier now we have a political system that isn't just two party: there are fights for smaller and smaller scraps and percentages. That newspaper vote is smaller than previous but still no less important. 

jpttaylor

UnclePsychosis said:

I am beginning to think that Corbyn isn't just incompetent, I think he's actually dangerous.

Apparently he plans to outline his policy of "removing tax relief for drugs research from pharmaceutical companies". Presumably he thinks we can just replace their work with homeopathy (something he believes in).

Of course this has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Owen Smith used to work for Pfizer.

It's extremely disconcerting to see a leader of a major political party propose policy purely in the name of discrediting an opponent.

At a time when the U.K is massively under investing in new pharmaceutical research, this is dangerous not only for his own stupid self but also the future health of the country. This, combined with the threat to phone his chief whip's father for disagreeing, has really opened my eyes to just how pathetic Corbyn and his staff are.

I watched the Vice documentary on Corbyn from the end of May and it's clear even then how much he loves the attention and the stardom. For someone that's self-styled as planning to alter British politics, his two "radical" policies at his leadersip launch were recycled from Miliband and New Labour respectively. What his acolytes see in him as a man and a leader, I genuinely don't know.

Garthy

UnclePsychosis said:

I am beginning to think that Corbyn isn't just incompetent, I think he's actually dangerous.

Apparently he plans to outline his policy of "removing tax relief for drugs research from pharmaceutical companies". Presumably he thinks we can just replace their work with homeopathy (something he believes in).

Of course this has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Owen Smith used to work for Pfizer.

Life imitates art again, Corbyn reminds me of Littlefinger from GoT when someone said that Littlefinger would burn the kingdom to the ground if he could be king of the ashes.

ToneControl

Garthy said:

UnclePsychosis said:

I am beginning to think that Corbyn isn't just incompetent, I think he's actually dangerous.

Apparently he plans to outline his policy of "removing tax relief for drugs research from pharmaceutical companies". Presumably he thinks we can just replace their work with homeopathy (something he believes in).

Of course this has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Owen Smith used to work for Pfizer.

Life imitates art again, Corbyn reminds me of Littlefinger from GoT when someone said that Littlefinger would burn the kingdom to the ground if he could be king of the ashes.

did you see McDonnell dismissing Corbyn's stupid ideas as misinterpretation today?
It was clear that the  govt couldn't  "farm out" 100 times the whole budget of the medical research council, so Corbyn looked like an ill-informed idiot again. "Private is bad public is good".  Apparently that's not what Corbyn meant when he said

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2016/jul/21/jeremy-corbyn-campaign-labour-leader-theresa-may-paris-politics-live?page=with:block-5790c804e4b0b9abc191632c#block-5790c804e4b0b9abc191632c

At his campaign launch, in response to a question about Owen Smith, Jeremy Corbyn said it was wrong for medical research to be “farmed out to big pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer”. (See1.01pm.) The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry has responded with a statement suggesting it thinks Corbyn does not understand how medical research works. It said:
The pharmaceutical industry invests more than £88bn a year into research and development in order to bring new medicines and vaccines to patients to fight disease. These new medicines include treatments for diabetes, cancer and cures for Hepatitis C, transforming the lives of patients and their families. In the UK this equates to £4.1bn per year of investment in R&D, with the [Medical Research Council] also contributing £770m and research charities £1.3bn. Clearly the taxpayer could not replace the world-wide investment made by industry in researching new medicines. Collaboration between industry researchers, academics and clinicians in the development of medicines for patient benefit is hugely important.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/john-mcdonnell-backtracks-jeremy-corbyns-8483352 ;

hungrymark

I have a friend who keeps sharing articles from The Canary, a pro-Corbyn site. I looked at it and it's ridiculous - proper personality cult stuff. I half-expected it to start referring to 'Our Dear Leader'. Corbyn's a demagogue, or wants to be one. Momentum is another grass roots movement in a similar vein.

ToneControl

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/22/intelligence-services-using-dark-practices-against-jeremy-corbyn?CMP=fb_gu

I'd thought Corbyn was a bit crap, with a few zealots in tow, but it's all M15 apparently

hungrymark

Somebody close to me works for the security services. She says the international terrorism scene is pretty quiet at the moment so they're just trying to fill the time by trolling Corbyn. 

ICBM

Sadly I think we're looking at the demise of the Labour Party, in the same way as the Liberals destroyed themselves in the years after Lloyd George - who also effectively became a Tory in the end. Sooner or later every party dies one way or another… apart from the Tories, they're the Undead .

The problem now is that there's no new opposition party to rise up and replace Labour the way Labour did the Liberals.

ToneControl

ICBM said:

Sadly I think we're looking at the demise of the Labour Party, in the same way as the Liberals destroyed themselves in the years after Lloyd George - who also effectively became a Tory in the end. Sooner or later every party dies one way or another… apart from the Tories, they're the Undead .

The problem now is that there's no new opposition party to rise up and replace Labour the way Labour did the Liberals.

the unlibs

we decided this, the dems

Philly_Q

I think it's high time the Whigs made a comeback.

jpttaylor

Philly_Q said:

I think it's high time the Whigs made a comeback.

Absolutely - for too long have the Corn Laws needed reviewing.

ICBM

Philly_Q said:

I think it's high time the Whigs made a comeback.

They couldn't do much worse.

There are Afghan ones too… worth a shot? They've reformed.

http://theafghanwhigs.com

Philly_Q

ICBM said:

Philly_Q said:

I think it's high time the Whigs made a comeback.

They couldn't do much worse.

There are Afghan ones too… worth a shot? They've reformed.

http://theafghanwhigs.com

Blimey, I'd forgotten all about them.

Greg Dulli for PM?  I don't know anything about him really, but I'd sooner vote for him than Corbyn.

axisus

Corbyn is going to win the leadership battle again, so the sooner the Tories call a gen election the better. Once he has failed miserably with that they can get on with finding a proper leader.