Yes journalism fits in to that category too. Far too many 20-somethings given a high-profile platform to write commentary when they have little more to go off than the average undergraduate student in their student newspaper.

I would much rather see regular commentary from Frances Coppola - a former banker and economist who is now a freelance writer who always seems to write sensible and clear, rather than sensationalist takes on the banking and finance system, than Grace Blakeley. She wrote a good critique of what Blakeley had got wrong in her 'Stolen' book. But the media is far less interested in what a middle aged professional has to say than a confident photogenic milennial, so you don't see her as much.

It's also interesting that you brought up the Sainsbury's-Asda merger. I have worked in competition and when that news story first broke people kept asking me what I thought of it. I didn't want to come to any judgement until the CMA had published its merger review so there was at least some hard evidence to base a view on. When I was in my early 20s, I would have had an instant view on it. It wouldn't have been based on any market analysis, it would have just been an instant view like 'big firms = bad, merger = probably worse'. Fortunately I didn't have any position of influence back then otherwise I'd have talked as much b0llocks as those journos do.

It's quite the phenomenon isn't it; on the other side of the political spectrum, but almost a photo-fit in terms of your description, is Kate Andrews - a brash, confident and articulate American, who represents a right wing, anti-tax organisation that lobbies to discredit the NHS but refuses to disclose any of its funding sources - but she gets a regular seat on QT, Newsnight and many other current affairs output, with no mention of who she represents other than the shadily ambiguous 'Tax Payers Alliance.'

I'm a big supporter of Labour and the now defunct Corbyn project, but I tend to agree that Owen Jones, Ash Sarkar and Grace Blakely, with their intellectual brand of idealistic student politics, probably did us no favours; I expect Workington Man found them as irritating as I now find my son.

While I can imagine that their fresh-faced, metropolitan liberalism may have been unappealing to large swathes of the population, i wonder how significant their influence on voting decisions was. I’m pretty sure i’m more interested in politics than most people, but, while I knew who Owen Jones is, I had to look up Sarkar and Blakely when I first saw them mentioned on threads like this. I recognised Sarkar’s face from an argument she had with Piers Morgan and felt like i’d maybe seen Blakely’s... somewhere. I shall look up Kate Andrews now.

Cummings is good at what he does, and acknowledges the importance of powerful slogans that appeal and resonate. Take Back Control and Get Brexit Done are both more active, and to the point. Stronger Together is a bit passive, For the Many Not the Few should have left the second part implied for brevity and positivity, and Time for Real Change had to include the ‘real’, because Johnson wasn’t running in the manner of an incumbent proud of his Party’s record in Government.

Corbyn looking more than his 70 years and Labour now being the party split over Europe, didn’t help, obviously.

For all the talk about learning lessons, I think we’ve turned a page and, in terms of policy and positioning, I think the circumstances to which those lessons could be applied have already changed. Antisemitism and failing to effectively fight it will continue to be a bad idea, mind you.

They have a huge and vocal presence on Twitter - and I'm sure all 3 featured a fair bit on Newsnight and other shows claiming to do political analysis; Ash Sarkar in particular has been a big presence - and I think she rubs a lot of people up the wrong way for various reasons; quite aside from being radical, and snarky, she attempts all the while to retain some youth appeal by speaking in memes and being quite sweary - and of course she's a she, and a brown she at that.



I agree; whilst it seemed that Labour was winning a lot of the social media stuff early on, the messaging was a bit limp.



I'm not sure looking old is necessarily an impediment - 'the kids' loved their Magic Grandpa; but the Europe thing was a massive problem - foisted on him, I believe, by several of the people who now think they should be leader, Keir Starmer first among them. Corbyn's instinct, I believe, was to respect the result of the referendum, and if he'd have stuck to his guns on that one, I think things would have been much closer.



Again - I agree; and with an emboldened Tory Party very definitely dictating the media messaging, I can't see any new leader with socialist leanings being allowed to function, outside of dealing with a constant stream of smears and slander from the media, helped by the now infamous 'senior Tory source.' Antisemitism is a good example - it was always a manufactured weapon to malign Corbyn, and has been proven to be significantly less prevalent in the Labour party than in society at large, or even in the Tory party - but since it worked so effectively, it will be the stick with which any Labour leader who does not conform to the acceptable, neo-liberal face of Labour leader that we are allowed to have, will be beaten with - to death - like a cat in a bag.

It strikes me that the PLP is now entirely at odds with the Membership - several hundred thousand of whom joined in support of Corbyn and his brand of socialism, and want Ian Lavery as the next leader, as a form of continuity Corbyn. If Mr Lavery announces, he will, I'm sure, be an anti-Semite and/or a terrorist sympathiser within 48 hours.

[i "... lifeless eyes, black eyes, like a doll's eyes."[/i

Ahhh, I don’t have a twitter account and fell out the habit of watching newsnight a few years ago.

From a quick Google search, there are about 14 million twitter users in the UK. Jones has getting on for a million followers, Sarkar (s like a champion, apparently - I’m unsure how that is meant to be interpreted... literally, humorously/ironically, as boldly liberated?) has 223k and Blakely just under 100k. Quite impressive (a bit more than I assumed, tbh), although Jamie Peacock has more than Blakely. Andrews only has 55k. Does that count as better or worse in the context of this discussion? Are these young advocates negatively effecting perceptions of the positions they espouse, overall?

Even with retweets, I can’t imagine anybody but Jones is regularly reaching more than a couple of million voters. And Newsnight typically gets an audience of around 500k; more around elections, of course.

I wasn’t directly exposed to any antisemitism from Labour members, so it all came to me through traditional media. I suppose extent and degree have to be considered alongside prevalence, but it did strike me that it was considered more newsworthy because it was Labour, whereas racism among some members of the Conservative Party is widely taken for granted. And that’s before we get to bought and paid for journalistic hatchet jobs.

Nonetheless, it did feel like a very disappointing failure of leadership, similar in that regard to the convoluted Brexit policy compromise. I know that one or two of the contemporary examples relating to the IHRA’s working definition of antisemitism, could theoretically be interpreted in a way that maybe begs a bit of further clarification, but the sort of initial equivocation and (pretty inevitable) acceptance of them, didn’t provide me with much confidence in Corbyn or his circle’s ability to deal with problems.

"If Mr Lavery announces, he will, I'm sure, be an anti-Semite and/or a terrorist sympathiser within 48 hours." Nah, not when the following is already out there https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... hdog-finds https://order-order.com/2019/12/04/lave ... questions/

"If Mr Lavery announces, he will, I'm sure, be an anti-Semite and/or a terrorist sympathiser within 48 hours." Nah, not when the following is already out there https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... hdog-finds https://order-order.com/2019/12/04/lave ... questions/

I dont think that Long Baily is ready this time but, on the basis that Labour will struggle like hell to turn their deficit round over the next 5 years, she could certainly be lined up for the next Leadership race, which could also help her in not being tarnished as a Corbynite, which could cost her, if she was Labour's leader at the next GE (assuming that Boris doesnt fall from grace before then).

RLB is already being dubbed 'Continuity Corbyn' by the usual suspects. She may as well take herself out of the running now. That moniker isn't going to go away.

by "the usual suspects" you mean intelligent people who can see her for what she is?

And that is from the likes of Tom Watson - what I find interesting is that none of them will suggest that Corbyn was a major contributor to Labour's downfall.

Whoever is selected will have at least four years to show who they are before the Mail and Express etc make up something. With the Sun it is as per they declare, they have even suggested that the new leader should adopt 5 principles one of which relates to the family but strangely not in respect of the life lead by Johnson.