politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » EXCLUSIVE: PB/Polling Matters Podcast with Damian McBride

Pauly said:

kle4 said:

Regarding the point raised in the podcast and elsewhere about 'is it Corbyn, or some of those around him?', isn't that just the latest version of the old refrain of blaming a king's advisers as a way of attacking the king without seeming to attack the king?

The difference is that the king can rectify it if it's his advisers (whether they will or not obviously depends on the king), but if it's the king he has to go to fix it.

But my view is that the role of the media has become a crutch for the left, a convenient deflection from our own failure to convince and persuade. We fail to get traction, not because we have failed to communicate an inspiring alternative, but because the evil old media has brainwashed the public. This is clearly patronising, reducing sentient human beings to sheep or robots, lacking agency and programmed by media oligarchs. It is a defeatist attitude, too, because if millions of people can simply be instructed what to think by powerful forces in society, then we will never win any battle. It stops us from being critical of our own failures and seeking to address them.

AndyJS said:

Does anyone else think Test Match Special has been ruined by all the matey / laddish commentators? It was far better with people like Bill Frindall and Christopher Martin-Jenkins IMO.

kle4 said:

Pauly said:

kle4 said:

Regarding the point raised in the podcast and elsewhere about 'is it Corbyn, or some of those around him?', isn't that just the latest version of the old refrain of blaming a king's advisers as a way of attacking the king without seeming to attack the king?

The difference is that the king can rectify it if it's his advisers (whether they will or not obviously depends on the king), but if it's the king he has to go to fix it.

Yes, but my point is sometimes people want to attack the king, but pretend that is not what they are doing by targeting the advisers, whether or not they are indeed essentially acting rogue or are incompetent and letting the king down. It just feels like a very standard, very old tactic of those plotting against a leader to present as not doing so until they are strong enough. Some may well be genuine, but others I do not believe, particularly when the leader is backing those advisers who are attached - in which case the distinction is meaningless.

Civil wars can be tragically hilarious in that respect, trying to present as still loyal, in theory, to a ruler, even as you are fighting battles against them. They are being led astray and poorly advised, you see.

Malmesbury said:

MaxPB said:

Tom said:

MaxPB said:

Danny565 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

If I was to download this, I am not certain even a months worth of showers would make me feel clean again. Man is pure filth.

In what way is McBride more "filth" than Lynton Crosby, apart from the latter's political preference aligning more with your own?

Crosby didn't smear political opponents and imply female MPs were lesbians to journalists. You may not like Crosby's politics but he never lied about the opposition and never involved family members. McBride is in a league of his own.

Anyone who thinks Crosby doesn't do personal attacks or go for family members is to put it politely naive. Did you not see the boris v ken elections or the treatment of ed miliband. Crosby may have more 'plausible deniability' because there is always a media outlet who will do the job for him but to suggest a moral difference between him and mc bride is a somewhat partisan view of the world.

Find me evidence that he was anywhere near Tory smears on Labour MPs wives and children and I'll agree. He eviscerated Ed for sure, but Ed was leader of the opposition, that was his job. I didn't say he never went negative or personal, he just didn't cross over that line where family members were targeted for smears and lies.

Dave, Ed, George, Balls and others are all soldiers, their families are civilians. Targeting civilians is just not cricket. I haven't seen any evidence, even a hint of any evidence that Crosby went after family members.

McBride was part of a conspiracy to *invent* lies about opposition politicians families. Including disabled children. He was caught before he could carry out his actions.

The Ken vs Boris election is actually a perfect example of a campaign staying away from someones family. A nastier person could have done said ugly things concerning Ken's family. Or, indeed a couple of things about Ken himself.

Tom said:

kle4 said:

Pauly said:

kle4 said:

Regarding the point raised in the podcast and elsewhere about 'is it Corbyn, or some of those around him?', isn't that just the latest version of the old refrain of blaming a king's advisers as a way of attacking the king without seeming to attack the king?

The difference is that the king can rectify it if it's his advisers (whether they will or not obviously depends on the king), but if it's the king he has to go to fix it.

Yes, but my point is sometimes people want to attack the king, but pretend that is not what they are doing by targeting the advisers, whether or not they are indeed essentially acting rogue or are incompetent and letting the king down. It just feels like a very standard, very old tactic of those plotting against a leader to present as not doing so until they are strong enough. Some may well be genuine, but others I do not believe, particularly when the leader is backing those advisers who are attached - in which case the distinction is meaningless.

Civil wars can be tragically hilarious in that respect, trying to present as still loyal, in theory, to a ruler, even as you are fighting battles against them. They are being led astray and poorly advised, you see.

That's absolutely right and is also the rational approach. You have a leader who has been elected on a reputation for niceness and openness to debate. They then appoint a team who entirely contradict that. In response step 1 is attack the team and encourage them to behave at their worst. Step 2 is to point this out to the leader. Step 3 is to challenge he leader to distance himself from the unpleasant cohorts which he can't do. Then you challenge. Both sides are playing passive aggressive at present.

Tom said:

Malmesbury said:

MaxPB said:

Tom said:

MaxPB said:

Danny565 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

If I was to download this, I am not certain even a months worth of showers would make me feel clean again. Man is pure filth.

In what way is McBride more "filth" than Lynton Crosby, apart from the latter's political preference aligning more with your own?

Crosby didn't smear political opponents and imply female MPs were lesbians to journalists. You may not like Crosby's politics but he never lied about the opposition and never involved family members. McBride is in a league of his own.

Anyone who thinks Crosby doesn't do personal attacks or go for family members is to put it politely naive. Did you not see the boris v ken elections or the treatment of ed miliband. Crosby may have more 'plausible deniability' because there is always a media outlet who will do the job for him but to suggest a moral difference between him and mc bride is a somewhat partisan view of the world.

Find me evidence that he was anywhere near Tory smears on Labour MPs wives and children and I'll agree. He eviscerated Ed for sure, but Ed was leader of the opposition, that was his job. I didn't say he never went negative or personal, he just didn't cross over that line where family members were targeted for smears and lies.

Dave, Ed, George, Balls and others are all soldiers, their families are civilians. Targeting civilians is just not cricket. I haven't seen any evidence, even a hint of any evidence that Crosby went after family members.

McBride was part of a conspiracy to *invent* lies about opposition politicians families. Including disabled children. He was caught before he could carry out his actions.

The Ken vs Boris election is actually a perfect example of a campaign staying away from someones family. A nastier person could have done said ugly things concerning Ken's family. Or, indeed a couple of things about Ken himself.

The only things the papers have ever held back on ken is things they couldn't stand up.

Gaz said:

dr_spyn said:

Britain Elects ‏@britainelects 2m2 minutes ago
Despite notable investment in barriers for Botcherby years ago, the ward still experienced flooding. This may explain the Independent gain.

@SimonStClare - perhaps support fell as the flood defences fell?

This is absurd. I represented the ward myself fifteen years ago. I know it fairly well, this independent won, on the back of the reputation of another hard working independent. The election was called before the floods happened, and it would not have had an impact on the result.

Scott_P said:

Wow, Owen Jones says something not completely stupid

But my view is that the role of the media has become a crutch for the left, a convenient deflection from our own failure to convince and persuade. We fail to get traction, not because we have failed to communicate an inspiring alternative, but because the evil old media has brainwashed the public. This is clearly patronising, reducing sentient human beings to sheep or robots, lacking agency and programmed by media oligarchs. It is a defeatist attitude, too, because if millions of people can simply be instructed what to think by powerful forces in society, then we will never win any battle. It stops us from being critical of our own failures and seeking to address them.

Floater said:

FFS

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/12088341/Two-teenage-girls-gang-raped-by-four-Syrian-nationals-in-southern-Germany.html

Tom said:

Owen jones writes some interesting stuff and more thoughtful than his sometimes spiky twitter persona.

This written just before corbyn's victory told them effectively what they needed to do to have a chance of success (it's a kind of left wing new labour for slow learners). You may disagree win what he says - I do with alot of it - but it was their only chance electorally. That they haven't done this and in many cases done the opposite shows what their priorities are:


https://medium.com/@OwenJones84/my-honest-thoughts-on-the-corbyn-campaign-and-overcoming-formidable-obstacles-de81d4449884#.ij9mdubik

Pauly said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Is it just me or has BBC resignation blog that is getting twitter so upset disappeared down the rabbit hole?

It has but accessible here:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:tCufUeYIpA4J:www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/collegeofjournalism/entries/82a00c77-c0cc-4e79-99ca-25e9c21d01a7+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

Gaz said:

justin124 said:

The Labour vote held steady tonight with the Tory vote down a fair bit despite the absence of a UKIP candidate.

You realise that this ward is the kind of ward that you would think would pull to Corbyn?

In 2003 I lost the seat as the last tory, it reverted to Labour, with 60% of the vote.

If Labour some how thing that theyve done better out of this they are deluded.

Tom said:

Owen jones writes some interesting stuff and more thoughtful than his sometimes spiky twitter persona.

This written just before corbyn's victory told them effectively what they needed to do to have a chance of success (it's a kind of left wing new labour for slow learners). You may disagree win what he says - I do with alot of it - but it was their only chance electorally. That they haven't done this and in many cases done the opposite shows what their priorities are:


https://medium.com/@OwenJones84/my-honest-thoughts-on-the-corbyn-campaign-and-overcoming-formidable-obstacles-de81d4449884#.ij9mdubik

DecrepitJohnL said:

An interesting podcast (featuring TSE) that touched on Corbyn inheriting his team from Ken's days at the Gherkin. One question arising from this that was not addressed is whether the London-centric nature of Corbyn's team meant they missed the impact of the floods -- London remained dry while the top half of the country was under two feet of water.

Tom said:

Malmesbury,

If you can provide the back up to stop them being sued the daily mail will give you £50k for the story. Fill yer boots.

The dogs in the streets know all the stories about ken but so what? It's worth as much as all of the child abuse stories about 80s Tory mps that people are 'convinced' are true because someone told them.

If you all want to believe that mcbride is a labour aberration, brown was uniquely venal, and that the Conservative party never gets involved in that kind of crap,then fine. I'll leave you to it.

ydoethur said:

In answer to earlier questions about who the left would have put up had they expected to win, although I don't know for sure the man said to be pretty blue about it was Jon Trickett. He is also just about the only one of the far left with practical experience of government and unlike Jeremy Corbyn has the reputation of being quite intelligent.

That being said, it's not as though he's exactly emerged as a major player even though all the talent has bled away from the shadow cabinet. So perhaps he was over-rating himself somewhat.

Mind you, when you are in the same wing of the party as Diane Abbott and Clive Lewis, must be difficult not to get an inflated idea of your own powers!

david_herdson said:

ydoethur said:

In answer to earlier questions about who the left would have put up had they expected to win, although I don't know for sure the man said to be pretty blue about it was Jon Trickett. He is also just about the only one of the far left with practical experience of government and unlike Jeremy Corbyn has the reputation of being quite intelligent.

That being said, it's not as though he's exactly emerged as a major player even though all the talent has bled away from the shadow cabinet. So perhaps he was over-rating himself somewhat.

Mind you, when you are in the same wing of the party as Diane Abbott and Clive Lewis, must be difficult not to get an inflated idea of your own powers!

Turning the question round, given what ultimately happened, who could the left have put up last summer and not won with? Could we realistically have had a Diane Abbott leadership now?

david_herdson said:

ydoethur said:

In answer to earlier questions about who the left would have put up had they expected to win, although I don't know for sure the man said to be pretty blue about it was Jon Trickett. He is also just about the only one of the far left with practical experience of government and unlike Jeremy Corbyn has the reputation of being quite intelligent.

That being said, it's not as though he's exactly emerged as a major player even though all the talent has bled away from the shadow cabinet. So perhaps he was over-rating himself somewhat.

Mind you, when you are in the same wing of the party as Diane Abbott and Clive Lewis, must be difficult not to get an inflated idea of your own powers!

Turning the question round, given what ultimately happened, who could the left have put up last summer and not won with? Could we realistically have had a Diane Abbott leadership now?

FrancisUrquhart said:

Sex attackers risk deportation - Merkel

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35259224

Just "risk" deportation? And where are you going to send them? And what about if they come back given your open door policy?

Two more countries to add to the list...

"Meanwhile, similar incidents from New Year's Eve have been reported in Finland and Switzerland. Similar attacks were also reported in Hamburg and in Stuttgart. In Finland, police said they had received reports of "widespread sexual harassment" in Helsinki on New Year's Eve. A police official said they were tipped off that groups of asylum seekers had planned to sexually harass women and that three asylum seekers had been arrested."

"This is a completely new phenomenon in Helsinki." [I bet it is]
-----

This is the most worrying part about all of this. This isn't something that just got a out of control on the night, all the reports are that it was pre-planned organized criminality on a massive scale.

Plato_Says said:

Like others here, I won't be listening to Mr McBride either. I haven't read his words or watched him on TV since he was cast into outer darkness. He occasionally writes for the Times and judging by the comments, there's a substantial number of their readers who feel the same.

MarqueeMark said:

Indigo said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

This is the most worrying part about all of this. This isn't something that just got a out of control on the night, all the reports are that it was pre-planned organized criminality on a massive scale.

That worrying bit is that the powers that be across the EU don't even want to talk about it, and in fact are colluding in covering it up, what are the chances of them actually doing anything about it ? Lets face it we have see people attempt to deflect and explain away this criminal behaviour within the last day or two on these very forums.

The thing that must be terrifying the powers that be is this was the first outing for the New Terrorism - no guns, no explosives, just using weight of numbers in a well co-ordinated attempt to say "we're here and this is the way it is going to be. And you let us in..." It is a perfect storm for political paralysis....

MarqueeMark said:

Indigo said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

This is the most worrying part about all of this. This isn't something that just got a out of control on the night, all the reports are that it was pre-planned organized criminality on a massive scale.

That worrying bit is that the powers that be across the EU don't even want to talk about it, and in fact are colluding in covering it up, what are the chances of them actually doing anything about it ? Lets face it we have see people attempt to deflect and explain away this criminal behaviour within the last day or two on these very forums.

The thing that must be terrifying the powers that be is this was the first outing for the New Terrorism - no guns, no explosives, just using weight of numbers in a well co-ordinated attempt to say "we're here and this is the way it is going to be. And you let us in..." It is a perfect storm for political paralysis....

Floater said:

Danny565 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

If I was to download this, I am not certain even a months worth of showers would make me feel clean again. Man is pure filth.

In what way is McBride more "filth" than Lynton Crosby, apart from the latter's political preference aligning more with your own?

Reeally, REALLY?

Where the F have you been?

SeanT said:

Some absolutely devastating detail here, out of Cologne. The story won't die down, indeed it looks like the German papers are finally doing their job.

"Police identified some suspects who harassed women in Cologne on New Year's Eve as asylum seekers, media reports say. City police reportedly did not want to publicize this because of its "politically awkward" nature."

http://www.dw.com/en/reports-asylum-seekers-among-cologne-attacks-suspects/a-18966406

blackburn63 said:

Btw I hope no pb'ers will be having a drink tonight, the nanny state has issued a warning, apparently a pint a day is too much.

And there was me being told that this govt was rolling back the state.

BannedInParis said:

Milliband's father became 'a target' after Milliband cited him as one of the biggest influences in his political life. While perhaps distasteful, its not remotely comparable to going for the wife and kids.

Even the Mafia don't do that.

Wanderer said:

Tom said:

Owen jones writes some interesting stuff and more thoughtful than his sometimes spiky twitter persona.

This written just before corbyn's victory told them effectively what they needed to do to have a chance of success (it's a kind of left wing new labour for slow learners). You may disagree win what he says - I do with alot of it - but it was their only chance electorally. That they haven't done this and in many cases done the opposite shows what their priorities are:


https://medium.com/@OwenJones84/my-honest-thoughts-on-the-corbyn-campaign-and-overcoming-formidable-obstacles-de81d4449884#.ij9mdubik

That's a very interesting read. Owen Jones is perplexing. He has a lot of insight up to a point, then not. I don't think he gets small-c conservative people.

blackburn63 said:

Btw I hope no pb'ers will be having a drink tonight, the nanny state has issued a warning, apparently a pint a day is too much.

And there was me being told that this govt was rolling back the state.

blackburn63 said:

BannedInParis said:

blackburn63 said:

BannedInParis said:

Milliband's father became 'a target' after Milliband cited him as one of the biggest influences in his political life. While perhaps distasteful, its not remotely comparable to going for the wife and kids.

Even the Mafia don't do that.

Ffs.

How about politicians are judged on what they do and the money spent on spin and PR is sent to flood victims.

Milliband did - he spoke about his influences - and people judged him on those influences.

So when Dave speaks fondly of his wife it's different to Ed speaking fondly of his Dad.

Gotcha.

blackburn63 said:

felix said:

blackburn63 said:

Btw I hope no pb'ers will be having a drink tonight, the nanny state has issued a warning, apparently a pint a day is too much.

And there was me being told that this govt was rolling back the state.

If you had seen the interview the emphasis was very much guidelines/advice and not compulsion or Nanny state. Seemed perfectly reasonable. Maybe you just don't like/get the message?

I don't give a toss about the message, it's a complete waste of time telling people to drink only a pint a day.

It's not what govt is for.

blackburn63 said:

felix said:

blackburn63 said:

Btw I hope no pb'ers will be having a drink tonight, the nanny state has issued a warning, apparently a pint a day is too much.

And there was me being told that this govt was rolling back the state.

If you had seen the interview the emphasis was very much guidelines/advice and not compulsion or Nanny state. Seemed perfectly reasonable. Maybe you just don't like/get the message?

I don't give a toss about the message, it's a complete waste of time telling people to drink only a pint a day.

It's not what govt is for.

blackburn63 said:

felix said:

blackburn63 said:

Btw I hope no pb'ers will be having a drink tonight, the nanny state has issued a warning, apparently a pint a day is too much.

And there was me being told that this govt was rolling back the state.

If you had seen the interview the emphasis was very much guidelines/advice and not compulsion or Nanny state. Seemed perfectly reasonable. Maybe you just don't like/get the message?

I don't give a toss about the message, it's a complete waste of time telling people to drink only a pint a day.

It's not what govt is for.