Media coverage deliberately biased against Corbyn, British public believes

Of course MPs tend to vote how the Whips tell them - that's how party politics in Westminster works. Always has done, probably always will

OK but the membership has now changed beyond recognition and increased dramatically and the members elected a new leader, a real left winger, with a mandate that is the largest in UK political history, so I think that trumps the 172's "mandate".

That's a slippery slope though, isn't it?

What's to stop a marginalised, or extremist group, or even an opposing political party with minimal "public support" infiltrating and changing the membership of the party in order to secure influence in the Houses of Parliament ?

She was an extremist who devastated communities across the country. Ask some other Corbynistas about it. Some of them are still fighting her tilting at that windmill.

If you don't think Thatcher was extreme you must have been a child in the 80s. I was an adult then. It was extreme. As were all the militants who screwed the Labour Party at the time.

You were seduced by Thatcher in the 80s and are seduced by Corbyn now. You seem to like extremes.

agree with Corbyn that the entire thing should be more democratized and opened up to teh membership to have an influence on policy rather than relying on the 172's "mandate" from an electorate whose opinion they don't consult on bombing Syria or anything else but just say that they have a mandate.

As a voter, you can't rely on the manifesto because the party might change their minds about policy after the election?

I think that the 172 are not representative of the members

But the members selected them. I appreciate that you struggle to accept that, but it's all well documented and transparent. If you were a regular attendee at your local Branch meetings, you'd know that.

Emily Thornberry seems to be able to get on OK with him, so I doubt he is as useless as is made out

You know, when one or two people say that someone is difficult to work with, you can put it down to a clash of personalities. When many, many people say similar things, and it's the minority that 'get on' with a person, you have to wonder whether the majority have a point.

I doubt it was the entire membership because if it was how are these parachuted in Oxbridge graduates selected?

It's a completely democratic process. The constituency Labour Party can select anyone to be a candidate - unlike other parties which only allow selection from the approved list.

but I think that the 172 should accept the will of Labour members and acknowledge that the party has changed

But they weren't elected by the Labour membership. "the people" put their cross in the box next to their name - even though the labour membership selected them to have their name on the ballot in the first place.

All the elected officials I have met respect the mandate they have been given by the people. If an MP defects from one party to another, many constituents are unhappy and a by-election often follows. This is no different.

The Labour Party do not know if their change will make a difference to the way people vote or not. What is likely is that many of those who voted Labour In the past, and elected the 172, will no longer vote labour. They may well be replaced and exceeded by new labour voters. But that doesn't get away from the fact that the 172 have a mandate from the people who voted for them.

the 172 are saying that Corbyn is useless etc and have therefore brought about this challenge to Corbyn just one year after he was elected

well, maybe he is useless! Being popular with the membership doesn't automatically make you good at particular jobs. That's what worries me about the idea of the membership selecting the shadow cabinet. Popularity doesn't always equate to effectiveness. If JC is poor at communicating with the PLP, is. (as you have alluded to) unable to influence members effectively enough to eliminate poor conduct on their part, has an abrasive manner that makes him challenging to work for, why shouldn't they challenge him to see if there is someone else who can do the job.

If you and your colleagues had a boss that the customers loved, but was a nightmare to work with, wouldn't you all band together to get rid of the, if you could?

"If Corbyn was part of the Establishment, instead of wanting to break the "magic circle", he would instead be begging to join it."

A magically circular argument.

They were selected because of who they are.

I doubt it. Ithink they were elected because of what they are i.e. Labour.

Nice try.

I said "selected". The Labour membership selected those people to represent the Labour Party as candidates. They were then elected by "the people" - probably because, as you say, they represented the Labour Party.

there is a split between the members and the 172.

There is. But i don't think that's the fault of the 172. The Labour party selected the 172 to represent the Labour Party, and "the people" elected them. Now, the Party have decided that they have changed, and as a result the 172 are no longer representative of what the party has become. It's hardly the fault of the 172 that the party has changed, is it?

I don't understand how you can be so anti something you cannot define...

And I don't understand how anyone can claim that Corbyn (career politician since the 1980s) is not himself part of the Establishment

We had had 18 years of Thatcherism and she had transformed the country and the political landscape and had defeated Old Labour,

Ah, I see, so 'old labour' wasn't destroyed from within, it was beaten fair and square. And in order to appeal to "the people", Red Tory Labour was formed and did very well.

Now, Corbynites think there is no longer a need for Blairism, as "old" Labour is more appealing to "the people" so they are turning their back on Red Tory Labour, and the 172, in order to re-establish themselves to the middle left.

One question though? Why so much animosity towards the 172? They were selected, supported and voted for by the Party and "the public". Yes, many of the Party and "the public" have changed, but they were given a mandate when they were elected. They were selected because of who they are.
I don't think it's reasonable to condemn them; they are following the official and legal channels available to them to determine the level of support for JC. If it becomes apparent that he has the majority support - THEN the 172 need to re-evaluate their positions. Can they continue when their mandate from "the people" is at odds with the party's mandate to their leader?

"If Labour can ditch some of their dogma about hindering aspiration "

??

No, because people's problems have got worse and they need solving and the Blairites have no answer as they cater to the metropolitan elite

Ok, so last time "old labour" was suppressed, it was by the Blairites. And Blairites can't solve the problems of "the people" this time.

But, "old labour" must have had weaknesses, that were exploited to suppress them last time?

So if Corbyn is "old labour" how have those weaknesses been addressed to prevent another suppression? Why are you so confident that with JC at the helm, the 21st century "old labour" won't end up being suppressed just as the "old labour" of the 20th century was?