Corbyn and Momentum

Then .labour 1964 to 1970, then the decade of strikes , this prosperity lasted through the late fifties to the late seventies ?

Yet Labour were voted out in 1951 untill 1964

Apologies I stated 1954 above should have been 1945

Reference has been made here to the 1954 Labour Government and its leader Clement Atlee. That government is my humble opinion was the greatest peacetime government this country has ever had.

Anyone who looks at its record will witness that under its leadership the National Health Service was brought into being, along with the welfare state (no more half starving children living in rags in our streets) and Britain's rail network was brought under full public ownership for the benefit of all. Those policies and others created full employment in Britain, which was a remarkable achievement within a nation still recovering from almost seven years of war.

As many of those policies were not rescinded even by following conservative governments and a consensus was created within Britain that gave us the prosperity seen throughout the late 1950, until the late 1970s

We can all argue on this forum in regard to the cause of Britain problems now, but what the younger generations are aware of would be that their parents and grandparents had far easier times getting established by way of housing and wages and they look for the same (and why not).

That in their eyes is not to be found in the establishment thinking of this government, hence the rise of the left and Jeremy Corbyn.

Online, in print, via social media, odd articles, cover to cover? I really don't know on an average day trisher.

For news and the MSM, I tend to think of TV rather than a newspaper.

The reason the young are choosing an alternative to MSM has been said over and over again.

Social media gives the opportunity for those who make the news to speak directly without the spin put out by the MSM. It is a refreshing and exciting change to listen directly to these people.

So how many newspapers do you read Primrose65?

The solution is of course social media which is where the young choose to get most of their news from

Yes, but a high proportion of that news is generated by the press. It's links to articles in the MSM or tweets/posts by people who work in the MSM.

Books and dissertations are hardly 'news'.
Neither is political PR coming straight from the parties.

I still don't think there's any alternative to getting news from the MSM.

I read links untill the vox pox claimed Corbyn was involved in the Good Friday Agreement, a lie .

And as for Mid Wales Mike ? Thank you but no thank you.

Social media isn't just forums lemongrove
And as for .Or finding some reading for yourself on the given subject.
There are any number of informed articles, dissertations, books, in fact any form of written communication available on a whole range of subjects. The factthat you can't access them doesn't mean others can't
Anniewe know you don't d links so yu probably have a limited knowledge of social media.

I wouldn’t say ‘better informed’ more that there is a deluge of opinion and fact, sometimes not facts at all, or facts without any context on social media.That doesn’t make it better than reading an intelligent and well thought out article.Or finding some reading for yourself on the given subject.
GN is better than most forums regarding politics ,( as Grandad said the other day,) a lot are either just regurgitating biased tweets or jumping on a foul mouthed bandwagon.
I really do wonder how informed ‘the young’ really are, and what they know of history and how things have come to be as they are so far.Of course the young are as diverse a group as the old, but the difference us that by being old we have had time to take in what has happened politically over the years, and they haven’t.

Social media has so much bullying, threats , lies than any newspaper ,

The young are not better informed , they are no different to the young in the sixties who believed love and flowers would bring world peace.

The solution is of course social media which is where the young choose to get most of their news from. Yes there are biased posters, but it is possible to access a range of views in a few minutes and for free. Most people would only buy one newspaper and accept its comments as gospel. So arguably the young are now better informed and they are opting for Labour.

Eleothan, I am quite aware of the onslaught on the Kinnocks by the press and on Michael Foot.

Corbyn isn't getting a fraction of the attacks Kinnock had and it went on from 1983 to 1992 without a break .

Kinnock took on the militants and this paved the way for the victory of three Labour Wins

I will not and cannot change my views which is based on facts, I spent those years door stepping and telephone canvassing, I am repeating what voters said and working with and for Neil Kinnock and then for Gordon Brown.

Voters feared the far left , going back to the seventies. Unions regaining too much power , fact. Labour won in 1997 by winning over middle England voters.

How successful was Clegg with the young untill he couldn't carry out his promises? , the Lib Party collapsed and I truly believe this will happen to the Labour Party.

The press has always been supporters of the tories . Why if Corbyn is so popular is the Daily Mirror selling far fewer papers than the Sun and Mail?

Eloethan, what's the solution?

anniebach Attlee and the Labour Party were linked not to the communists but to "the Gestapo" by Winston Churchhill. At that time Nazis were thought to be more conducive to invoking fear and hatred than communists. The Nazis had rooted out communists and put them in concentration camps.

In the past you have spoken very fondly and admiringly of Neil Kinnock, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. Yet Kinnock and his wife were also subject to a deluge of negative press and "reds under the bed" media comments and Brown was constantly ridiculed and harangued. Blair, unsurprisingly, escaped the barrage of abuse.

Kinnock saw the danger of cosying up to people like Murdoch. Here are some extracts from an article by James Macintyre:

"In his diaries, The Blair Years, Campbell recalls Kinnock saying: "It won't matter if we win as the bankers and stockbrokers have got us already by the f*****g balls. And that is before you take your 30 pieces of silver."
.........................
"When Campbell protested that he and Blair had given nothing to Murdoch, Kinnock countered prophetically: "You will. And he will take it.........."

Murdoch is no different from other newspaper proprietors, the vast majority of whom can be guaranteed to support right wing parties between and during elections. He is just less discreet.

www.redpepper.org.uk/the-myth-of-the-1970s/

In the 1970s, they say, the dead lay unburied, greedy unions held the country to ransom and a divided country was impossible to govern, John Medhurst asks: was it really so bad?

An article from 2014

Annie I simply did not say it did not happen.

This is just me being biased, it didn't happen ?

youtu.be/8vCQ0ebTaLk

What you are saying Annie is that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. What I am saying is anyone who disagrees with me simply has a different perspective.

Yes, we did have the strikes you mention - I don't think I suggested otherwise - but yours is a view that says only one party to the disagreements (the unions) caused the strikes. It is possible to offer an equal and opposite view that shows the other party (the government) caused the strikes. It is also possible to show that there was fault and virtue on both sides. From these arguments we are each allowed to form an opinion. Yours is an opinion.

Anyone have memories of the strikes in the seventies ?

GG claims my post listing them they were not a fact but my bias

We didn't have postal, train, bus, miners, refuge collections, grave diggers, electricity strikes ?

www.theguardian.com/theguardian/1972/feb/16/fromthearchive

youtu.be/Je65Vw7ndro

These didn't affect voters in 1983 ?

Much has been said in this thread in regard to the Thatcher government "abolishing" the power of the trade unions and that is an established fact. Without doubt the foregoing stabilised Britain in the years throughout the 1980s, but in recent years those same legal restrictions have impacted on middle Britain in a way the conservatives who brought those Parliamentary bills into being could never have imagined.

Over the years the power of employers has increased due to a number of factors. However, within that the ability of employees to organise to maintain their wages and standards (with the exception of workplace safety) has declined.

The foregoing has impacted on "young middle Britain" more than any other group. Those persons no longer are able to get on the housing ladder, achieve reasonable salary increases, find affordable child care as both parents have to work longer hours to make financial ends meet.

In that, those "young middle Britain's" would have voted conservative in the 80s and early 90s, but the above factors now mean they are increasingly rejecting established thinking and seeking alternatives, hence the rise of Momentum and through that the Jeremy Corbyn wing and leadership of the Labour party.

As I stated earlier in this thread, to be a Conservative you need to have something to conserve. If you cannot get on the housing ladder or achieve a reasonable salary increase to maintain your family's living standard you will in increasing numbers not look too "the establishment" for the answer to your problems.

Much of what any fear is courtesy of what the press ( and I won’t repeat again who owns most of that) tells them to fear through distortion, slur and innuendo. Oh and of course - - a vice chair of the Conservative Party

"The power of the Unions in the seventies made life miserable."

That is an opinion showing extreme bias AB, not a fact. Someone could equally say that the power Conservatives took to themselves at this time, with the undemocratic use of civil forces to attack the people made life miserable.

I expect, as it usually is, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.