Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Politics
Original poster

Media coverage deliberately biased against Corbyn, British public believes

394 replies

claig · 04/09/2016 19:39

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

OP posts:
NNChangeAgain · 10/09/2016 22:23

Smith has done nothing but insult the intelligence of 17.5 million who voted Leave by suggesting that we are too stupid to understand what the vote was about

How is that different from saying that you think some of "the people" are exaggerating, and that they don't really mean what they say?

I think they are exaggerating because I think everybody knew

A lot of what people say is "banter", they don't really mean a lot of it.

As an aside - Do you have a target for how many times you include this phrase on MN?
Corbyn calls for Westminster 'magic circle' to be broken
I only ask as you've started to randomly inserted it into posts Hmm

Original poster
claig · 10/09/2016 22:28

'How is that different from saying that you think some of "the people" are exaggerating, and that they don't really mean what they say? '

Because I am not talking about their understanding or intelligence, I think they are mainly venting which is what everybody does.

I think I have quoted it twice on this thread. It is a quote from a paper on Corbyn's statement about the "magic circle" and I think it is relevant to Corbyn's wish to spread power and democracy to the people and take it away from the "magic circle" which is why I quoted it in the context of members voting for the Shadow Cabinet.

OP posts:
NNChangeAgain · 10/09/2016 22:39

I think they are mainly venting which is what everybody does
my guess is it was very few
I thinnk the people are smarter than that
I think they are exaggerating
I don't think that that many people are angry
I think that most of them have been frightened

What if you're wrong?

What if, despite all those things you think, and guess, and believe, about people not meaning what they say - they are in fact, accurately and honestly describing their feelings and point of view?

What if you were to take them at face value, rather than attribute alternate feelings and opinions on to them?

Original poster
claig · 10/09/2016 22:40

Then I would have judged it wrongly.

OP posts:
NNChangeAgain · 10/09/2016 22:46

Which is more likely? Wink

Original poster
claig · 10/09/2016 22:53

Yes, you're right, they are angry and are still bringing it up two months later. Owen Smith is right, they feel deceived and wish they could vote again in another Referendum and this time they would vote Remain and they back Owen Smith's attempt to bring that about which is why Owen Smith was booed at a Labour hustings in Gateshead when he brought it up and why an audience member in the Question Time debate said that Owen Smith was "insulting the intelligence of Leave voters".

OP posts:
Kaija · 10/09/2016 22:57

NN, please. Claig is not coming to this in a spirit of enquiry. Claig is a UKIP supporter who has been working tirelessly on here for years to propagate myths about "the establishment" and now "the magic circle" and other such nonsense.

This thread is most likely about UKIP (or its successor) going after traditional labour votes, now that labour is creating its own political vacuum, and tying those myths to the labour split to prepare the ground. In any case, a Labour Party mortally weakened by an unelectable leader is very good news for UKIP and much to be encouraged by them, as Claig and his ilk are only too well aware.

Original poster
claig · 10/09/2016 23:00

With Farage gone, UKIP is practically finished. I will probably switch back to the Conservatives. How can a brand new party without Farage match what UKIP did?

OP posts:
Kaija · 10/09/2016 23:02

How indeed. I'm sure we are about to find out.

NNChangeAgain · 10/09/2016 23:05

Ok, so on the basis that it is possible that some Leave voters feel betrayed as they have not got what they believed they voted for, is it also possible that - if the Labour Party introduced participatory politics - some voters would not fully understand the process and be left feeling angry and disillusioned?

And, if they did, is it possible that the anger felt by some could result in public disorder?

And, do you think the risk of public disorder is worth it, so that the public have the opportunity to be more involved in political decision making?

Original poster
claig · 10/09/2016 23:05

'How indeed. I'm sure we are about to find out.'

It won't happen. Arron Banks would just be throwing money away. Theresa May will probably sweep up most of the UKIP vote, particularly if Labour want to hold another referendum and keep us in the EU.

OP posts:
Original poster
claig · 10/09/2016 23:11

'if the Labour Party introduced participatory politics - some voters would not fully understand the process and be left feeling angry and disillusioned? '

Not if it was a democratic vote where every vote counted and the party was bound by the vote. It is prettty simple and clear and I think that Labour members would understand it. They would only feel let down if Owen Smith decided he knew better than them and insisted on reholding the vote until they voted for what he wanted.

'is it possible that the anger felt by some could result in public disorder? '

I don't think Labour members are violent people. I think they would accept the result of a democratic vote; they are not like Owen Smith.

'And, do you think the risk of public disorder is worth it, so that the public have the opportunity to be more involved in political decision making?'

I may be judging this wrongly as you know more aout Labour members than I do, but I don't believe there would be any public disorder if members were allowed to participate in decisin making.

OP posts:
Kaija · 10/09/2016 23:11

He's got plenty to throw.

NNChangeAgain · 10/09/2016 23:13

In any case, a Labour Party mortally weakened by an unelectable leader is very good news for UKIP and much to be encouraged by them, as Claig and his ilk are only too well aware.

A weakened opposition is not good news for any political party, particularly when the Government has such a slim majority.

claig and I agree on some things, and if referring to groups of people with with common values as "The Establishment", or "The Magic Circle" helps understanding, then I'm happy to indulge it.

I enjoy discussions with people like claig as it forces me to think about my own position and formulate arguments for my own position. I have questioned my reasons for having the position that I do.

However, when a political position is made based on the premise that a specific group of people don't mean what they say, then the argument is undermined.

Original poster
claig · 10/09/2016 23:14

'He's got plenty to throw.'

But he is not stupid. Why waste it?

OP posts:
NNChangeAgain · 10/09/2016 23:17

I may be judging this wrongly as you know more aout Labour members than I do, but I don't believe there would be any public disorder if members were allowed to participate in decisin making.

Given that you think that there would be millions of members, all wanting to take part in the participatory politics on offer, I don't think a judgement can be made on the basis of the current membership.
And, it's not the Labour Party I am a member of; my knowledge of them is far less than members of other political parties.

Kaija · 10/09/2016 23:18

Shits and giggles? Bringing down "the establishment"? What's motivated him so far?

It seems like only yesterday that you were praising Diane James to the skies and suggesting she was the great new hope. Changed your mind?

Original poster
claig · 10/09/2016 23:21

'Given that you think that there would be millions of members, all wanting to take part in the participatory politics on offer,'

But 33.5 million people participated in the Referendum and there was no public disorder. Labour members are probably more reasonable than memers of some other parties.

'And, it's not the Labour Party I am a member of;'

Sorry, I thought you were Labour.

OP posts:
NNChangeAgain · 10/09/2016 23:23

People can do that, change their mind, that is.

I find it most revealing if you take people at face value and explore the reasons for their opinions. Usually, it doesn't take long to establish if it's a true change of mind, or just someone manipulating a situation to further their true cause Wink

Original poster
claig · 10/09/2016 23:24

'Shits and giggles? Bringing down "the establishment"?'

How on earth is Arron Banks going to do that? Only Trump can bring the Establishment down by changing the parameters of the entire game.

'It seems like only yesterday that you were praising Diane James to the skies and suggesting she was the great new hope'

Diane James is a brilliant politician, she has even more courage than Farage. She would knock spots off Owen Smith and the 172, but she is stuck in UKIP so she can't achieve her full potential.

OP posts:
NNChangeAgain · 10/09/2016 23:24

Sorry, I thought you were Labour

Really? Based on what I've posted on this thread - you think I'm a labour member?!?

NNChangeAgain · 10/09/2016 23:27

Diane James is a brilliant politician............she is stuck in UKIP so she can't achieve her full potential.

You know that's her choice, don't you? She could defect to a party where she would have the opportunities to shine.

What UKIP specific policies make the other parties ideologically unacceptable to her?

Original poster
claig · 10/09/2016 23:31

'Based on what I've posted on this thread - you think I'm a labour member?!?'

Yes

'You know that's her choice, don't you? She could defect to a party where she would have the opportunities to shine. '

Yes but Diane James has principles and sticks to them. She is more on the conservative side than Labour so she could fit in with a non-politically correct conservative party i.e. not a Cameron one, but she doesn't do things just to climb a career ladder.

'What UKIP specific policies make the other parties ideologically unacceptable to her?'

She could fit in a non-politically correct conservative party but she wouldn't fit in Labour because they are politically correct.

OP posts:
Kaija · 10/09/2016 23:37

She could fit in a non-politically correct conservative party but she wouldn't fit in Labour because they are politically correct.

Is she a bit racist then?

Original poster
claig · 10/09/2016 23:42

Not at all. Racism is nothing to do with not being politically correct. You are obviously not a conservative or you would know what political correctness is. Probably the main reason that Trump beat all the 16 Estalishment Republican candidates is because of his political incorrectness which is what most conservatives care most about.

OP posts: