Media coverage deliberately biased against Corbyn, British public believes

[claig]

The public understand the media's game.

There is no fooling the public or the Corbynistas. The usual tactics of the metropolitan elite have failed.

"Perception of unfairness extends beyond supporters of Labour leader"
..
A majority of the British public believe the media is deliberately biased against Jeremy Corbyn and seeking to portray him in a negative light.
..
Women in the Labour selectorate were more likely to believe the coverage was biased than men and older people in the group were also more likely to believe it had been deliberately biased "

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-poll-labour-leadership-media-bias-believe-against-him-supporters-mi5-portland-a7225031.html

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

I accept Corbyn's definition of the "magic circle". I think it is about right.

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

Because the entire Establishment, BBC, Lord this and that, former bigwigs, Blairites, the 172 etc etc are all against Corbyn. If he was part of the Establishment, they would all be praising and backing him and he wouldn't make speeches saying he wants to break the "magic circle".

If Corbyn was part of the Establishment, instead of wanting to break the "magic circle", he would instead be begging to join it. Corbyn is not playing ball and the "circle" are not amused.

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?

'The Labour membership selected those people to represent the Labour Party as candidates.'

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

'It's hardly the fault of the 172 that the party has changed, is it?'

No, but I think that the 172 should accept the will of Labour members and acknowledge that the party has changed and that they should work with Corbyn for the benefit of Labour voters just as Emily Thornberry has done to her credit.

But 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 with the biggest mandate in UK political history by a party whose membership has grown beyond what it was in Blairite days and is now the largest political party in Europe.

"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.

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?

'well, maybe he is useless'

Emily Thornberry seems to be able to get on OK with him, so I doubt he is as useless as is made out. I think that the members' views should override the PLP's views because I think that the 172 are not representative of the members and I think that is bad for democracy and accountability of MPs. I 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.

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.

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?

'But the members selected them.'

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".

'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.'

Well there have been reports that some of the 172 have been talking to Corbyn's team about how they can work with him again if he wins and that some of the 172 have been saying that they felt they had to go along with it because they felt that the bigwigs were leading it against Corbyn. A lot of the 172 are probably followers.

When Corbyn wins, if he does, I think that most of the 172 will be able to get along with him. Of course some won't and will agree with Blair about Corbyn.

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

I agree which is why the "mandate" claim is a bit weak in my opinion as the electorate are not asked about changing circumstances or things they had not foreseen.

Most of these MPs vote the way the whips tell them (apart from Corbyn of course), so they accept the Labour Party position rather than their own opinion in most cases.

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

I don't think they are extremes. Thatcher was anti-establishment and for the people which was why the working class in Essex and elsewhere voted for her and Corbyn is anti-establishment and for the people.

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.

I was young, but we had 18 years of Thatcher and the British people don't elect extremists. She was the most popular Tory Prime Minister for decades among Tory supporters.

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.

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 ?

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

Most of these MPs vote the way the whips tell them (apart from Corbyn of course), so they accept the Labour Party position rather than their own opinion in most cases

And what the 172 will have to do is decide whether to comply with the party whip, or rebel as JC did.

How will the Corbynistas feel if JC faces regular rebellion in the HoC? After all, he voted with his conscience for years - why can't they?

'After all, he voted with his conscience for years - why can't they?'

Have they all got one? Did they abstain from the Welfare Bill while Corbyn refused to join them?

Have they all got one

The joys of democracy, eh? Free will to vote as they wish without fear of reprisals.

I hated Thatcher, my life was shit when she was in power. Just had to get that one in, as you were.

Amen, Orson.

Thatcher was extreme. Never has a PM been loved or loathed more or divided the nation as much. Not all Tories loved her and many labour voters became Thatcherites

I don't think we shall see such a leader again she divided the nation and changed it forever