State of the parties as 2015 General Election looms.

[amateur51]

Clearly it isn't, as they have voted themselves a big pay rise, while the useful public sector continues to be frozen, squeezed and pulped.

Splendid riposte EA!

[amateur51]

Oh dear.

I think he's got cramp in his lips.

[amateur51]

I see the medications' stopped working.

Triffic snipe Risotto.

[Beef Oven!]

The Labour Party has realised that, from an electoral perspective, they need to get on message on this.

Will they be able to turn it around in Scotland?

Or no matter how much time they have, will they get smashed in Scotland and the SNP will move closer to holding the balance of power in Westminster?

I think it's going to be a fascinating 2015 general election.

[Richard Barrett]

Triffic snipe Risotto.

Complete with misplaced apostrophe.

Curious that accusations of "weary and predictable old Marxist stuff" tend not to be accompanied by a credible refutation of same... isn't it obvious that all commercial news media will serve the interests of those they depend on? ie. not just advertisers but the official channels who provide them with privileged information as long as this doesn't lead to questioning on too fundamental a level. From the Wikipedia article on Chomsky and Herman's seminal book Manufacturing Consent:

Herman and Chomsky's "propaganda model" describes five editorially distorting filters applied to news reporting in mass media:

Size, Ownership, and Profit Orientation: The dominant mass-media outlets are large firms which are run for profit. Therefore they must cater to the financial interest of their owners - often corporations or particular controlling investors. The size of the firms is a necessary consequence of the capital requirements for the technology to reach a mass audience.
The Advertising License to Do Business: Since the majority of the revenue of major media outlets derives from advertising (not from sales or subscriptions), advertisers have acquired a "de facto licensing authority". Media outlets are not commercially viable without the support of advertisers. News media must therefore cater to the political prejudices and economic desires of their advertisers. This has weakened the working class press, for example, and also helps explain the attrition in the number of newspapers.
Sourcing Mass Media News: Herman and Chomsky argue that “the large bureaucracies of the powerful subsidize the mass media, and gain special access [to the news], by their contribution to reducing the media’s costs of acquiring [...] and producing, news. The large entities that provide this subsidy become 'routine' news sources and have privileged access to the gates. Non-routine sources must struggle for access, and may be ignored by the arbitrary decision of the gatekeepers.”
Flak and the Enforcers: "Flak" refers to negative responses to a media statement or program (e.g. letters, complaints, lawsuits, or legislative actions). Flak can be expensive to the media, either due to loss of advertising revenue, or due to the costs of legal defense or defense of the media outlet's public image. Flak can be organized by powerful, private influence groups (e.g. think tanks). The prospect of eliciting flak can be a deterrent to the reporting of certain kinds of facts or opinions.
Anti-Communism: This was included as a filter in the original 1988 edition of the book, but Chomsky argues that since the end of the Cold War (1945–91), anticommunism was replaced by the "War on Terror", as the major social control mechanism.

[P. G. Tipps]

Curious that accusations of "weary and predictable old Marxist stuff" tend not to be accompanied by a credible refutation of same... isn't it obvious that all commercial news media will serve the interests of those they depend on? ie. not just advertisers but the official channels who provide them with privileged information as long as this doesn't lead to questioning on too fundamental a level. From the Wikipedia article on Chomsky and Herman's seminal book Manufacturing Consent:

Herman and Chomsky's "propaganda model" describes five editorially distorting filters applied to news reporting in mass media:

Size, Ownership, and Profit Orientation: The dominant mass-media outlets are large firms which are run for profit. Therefore they must cater to the financial interest of their owners - often corporations or particular controlling investors. The size of the firms is a necessary consequence of the capital requirements for the technology to reach a mass audience.
The Advertising License to Do Business: Since the majority of the revenue of major media outlets derives from advertising (not from sales or subscriptions), advertisers have acquired a "de facto licensing authority". Media outlets are not commercially viable without the support of advertisers. News media must therefore cater to the political prejudices and economic desires of their advertisers. This has weakened the working class press, for example, and also helps explain the attrition in the number of newspapers.
Sourcing Mass Media News: Herman and Chomsky argue that “the large bureaucracies of the powerful subsidize the mass media, and gain special access [to the news], by their contribution to reducing the media’s costs of acquiring [...] and producing, news. The large entities that provide this subsidy become 'routine' news sources and have privileged access to the gates. Non-routine sources must struggle for access, and may be ignored by the arbitrary decision of the gatekeepers.”
Flak and the Enforcers: "Flak" refers to negative responses to a media statement or program (e.g. letters, complaints, lawsuits, or legislative actions). Flak can be expensive to the media, either due to loss of advertising revenue, or due to the costs of legal defense or defense of the media outlet's public image. Flak can be organized by powerful, private influence groups (e.g. think tanks). The prospect of eliciting flak can be a deterrent to the reporting of certain kinds of facts or opinions.
Anti-Communism: This was included as a filter in the original 1988 edition of the book, but Chomsky argues that since the end of the Cold War (1945–91), anticommunism was replaced by the "War on Terror", as the major social control mechanism.

Well many of us might tend to agree with much of that (which is why I no longer buy newspapers) but the last 'filter' is certainly 'weary and predictable old Marxist stuff' if ever there were!

Rather I'd have thought that modern pseudo-Marxist 'political correctness' is a much more widespread and powerful form of social control mechanism than a very simple term that accurately describes the struggle against the deliberate and savage killing of innocent civilians, and those who arbitrarily chop the heads off aid workers and journalists.

[MrGongGong]

Rather I'd have thought that modern pseudo-Marxist 'political correctness'

There you go again

http://clichesite.com/alpha_list.asp?which=lett+1

those who arbitrarily chop the heads off aid workers and journalists

I guess you are making a distinction (I might be wrong here) between
those who chop off heads in an "arbitrary" way = baddies
and
those who do it in a more organised way like our good friends in Saudi Arabia = goodies

[french frank]

Clearly it isn't, as they have voted themselves a big pay rise, while the useful public sector continues to be frozen, squeezed and pulped.

Splendid riposte EA!

Not exactly. They don't vote on their pay increases, and cannot simply 'refuse' them. They can donate their own increase to charity, if they wish.

What they can do is vote to abolish IPSA (which also regulates MPs' expenses) and some senior politicians have proposed doing so.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mps-pay-rise-2014-party-leaders-unite-against-ipsas-10-per-cent-recommendation-9717286.html

"The only option for politicians to block their own rise would be to take a vote to abolish the watchdog. That move could pitch political leaders, many of whom come from wealthy backgrounds, against backbench MPs who believe they are under-paid."

[amateur51]

Not exactly. They don't vote on their pay increases, and cannot simply 'refuse' them. They can donate their own increase to charity, if they wish.

What they can do is vote to abolish IPSA (which also regulates MPs' expenses) and some senior politicians have proposed doing so.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mps-pay-rise-2014-party-leaders-unite-against-ipsas-10-per-cent-recommendation-9717286.html

"The only option for politicians to block their own rise would be to take a vote to abolish the watchdog. That move could pitch political leaders, many of whom come from wealthy backgrounds, against backbench MPs who believe they are under-paid."

It's very good of you to try and help the Parliamentarians out french frank but they have only themselves to blame - it's a system that they devised and voted for. What other body of workers would be able to vote for their own terms & conditions.

The perks used to be massive, and of course they exploited the system and now they've had to be reined in.

[Beef Oven!]

Curious that accusations of "weary and predictable old Marxist stuff" tend not to be accompanied by a credible refutation of same...

There is little pressure on us to refute the Marxist interpretation of the world when the point is to change the world, through wealth creation and freedom.

isn't it obvious that all commercial news media will serve the interests of those they depend on? ie. not just advertisers but the official channels who provide them with privileged information as long as this doesn't lead to questioning on too fundamental a level. From the Wikipedia article on Chomsky and Herman's seminal book Manufacturing Consent:

[I]Herman and Chomsky's "propaganda model" describes five editorially distorting filters applied to news reporting in mass media..........

Chomsky was interviewed on News Night last night and I was reminded of what an outstandingly brilliant mind he is. He is 85 and one can only hope that he can benefit us with his analysis and intellect for a few more years to come. I do not believe that there is any obvious successor to him. They don't make 'em like him anymore.

[amateur51]

Well many of us might tend to agree with much of that (which is why I no longer buy newspapers) but the last 'filter' is certainly 'weary and predictable old Marxist stuff' if ever there were!

Rather I'd have thought that modern pseudo-Marxist 'political correctness' is a much more widespread and powerful form of social control mechanism than a very simple term that accurately describes the struggle against the deliberate and savage killing of innocent civilians, and those who arbitrarily chop the heads off aid workers and journalists.

You're not harking back to those nice Christian Crusaders I hope, PGcelt. Atrocities against innocent civilians have been going on ever since history began.

And why use 'many of us' when you mean only yourself, for certain?

[french frank]

It's very good of you to try and help the Parliamentarians out french frank but they have only themselves to blame - it's a system that they devised and voted for. What other body of workers would be able to vote for their own terms & conditions.

The perks used to be massive, and of course they exploited the system and now they've had to be reined in.

I was merely pointing out that to say they 'voted for their own pay rise' was incorrect. IPSA was formed under the previous government to deal with the expenses scandal. On the one hand you're saying 'they've had to be reined in'; on the other that, essentially, it's a disgrace that they've 'awarded themselves' this pay rise. I'm not helping the Parliamentarians, as you put it, unless correcting factual inaccuracies is what you mean.

[Richard Barrett]

the last 'filter' is certainly 'weary and predictable old Marxist stuff' if ever there were!

Chomsky of course is not a Marxist or even a pseudo-Marxist.

Our "friends" in Saudi Arabia and their institutionalised beheadings have been mentioned. I note that most of the people executed in this way in Saudi Arabia are poor foreign workers - Sausis themselves are generally able to afford to pay off their accuser(s) and thus retain their heads. Those who rail about the brutal excesses of "Muslim fundamentalism" might ponder the fact that Saudi Arabia has probably the most fundamentalist regime on earth. Yet money and oil enable it to avoid the kind of descriptions used for the Taliban, ISIS and so on. Not that any of the latter's brutality is excusable; but if it's inexcusable it should be inexcusable for everyone. Or is that too "politically correct" a thing to say?

I wonder what Noam Chomsky would have to say about UKIP. Nothing very complimentary I'll wager.

[Beef Oven!]

I wonder what Noam Chomsky would have to say about UKIP. Nothing very complimentary I'll wager.

Well, if you had tuned into Newsnight last night, you'd know!


Scroll through to 28 mins 28 secs for Chomsky

Edit: ".....I think they [Tea Party & UKIP] reflect understandable anger at a neoliberal period, in which the majority of the population has suffered considerably whilst anonymous wealth and power has been accumulated in a tiny fraction of society.....but it's not entirely correct..."

This is hardly uncomplimentary, so maybe you're not in unison with Chomsky as much as you think, and you should keep your money in your pocket and not make such wagers!

[Richard Barrett]

Well, if you had tuned into Newsnight last night

You can't do that in foreign parts you know, and neither can you use the iPlayer to watch TV programmes, so I shall have to remain ignorant for now.