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

Except that you have written in very very positive terms about Putin on these boards, and described him as Russia's establishment. So you are clearly not entirely anti-establishment. What's the difference?

And you don't apparently live in the US either, yet seem very enthused about Trump.

'Except that you have written in very very positive terms about Putin on these boards, and described him as Russia's establishment.'

No I haven't. I never said he was the Establishment as I don't know what goes on in Russia.

'So you are clearly not entirely anti-establishment.'

I am pro Trump, pro Farage and pro Corbyn. It doesn't get more anti-establishment than those three.

'And you don't apparently live in the US either, yet seem very enthused about Trump.'

Absolutely because America runs Europe and us and therefore when Trump wins, everything will change in Europe and here, as well as in America. Real change will only come from America and Trump will deliver it.

Yes Claig, you have spoken in glowing terms about Putin and described him as part of the Russian establishment - you said it on the recent Trump/Farage thread.

So clearly not all Establishments are the same in your eyes.

I am pro Trump, pro Farage and pro Corbyn. It doesn't get more anti-establishment than those three.

You know, that would make an amazing dinner party guest list. Inviting their wives would add a whole other dimension, too

'you have spoken in glowing terms about Putin and described him as part of the Russian establishment '

No I haven't. I don't know what the Russian Establishment is.

Claig, on 29/8 you said "No, Putin is the Establishment in Russia." and that you were in agreement with Trump and Farage in their admiration of Putin. And you have contributed a lot of posts on the subject of Russia and the Ukraine across these boards so are clearly not indifferent to what is happening there.

So why is the Establishment in the US and Europe such a bad thing, when it is such a good thing over there?

Oh yes corbyn , that well known anti establishment figure. Supported by a bunch of middle class activists who wouldn't recognise the Labour party if it hit them over the head. Whinging about media bias is what this section of the left do. Those of us who have been involved in the Labour party for years, thought that we had moved beyond blaming everything on the press. But that was when we were actually electable. As claig is demonstrating, those who support corbyn are nothing to do with Labour, in fact they support Ukip and Thatcher.

'and that you were in agreement with Trump and Farage in their admiration of Putin.'

No, I said I agree with Trump and Farage and Corbyn over Putin. They don't admire him and nor do I.

"And you have contributed a lot of posts on the subject of Russia and the Ukraine across these boards so are clearly not indifferent to what is happening there."

Yes because I agree with Trum and Farage and to a lesser extent with Corbyn over Ukraine and Putin.

'So why is the Establishment in the US and Europe such a bad thing'

Because they are out of touch with the people and are doing stupid things that don't reflect the will of the people, as Corbyn detailed in his comments about the "magic circle".

'when it is such a good thing over there?'

I never said it was a good thing over there because I don't know what goes on over there.

You agree with Trump and Farage about Putin, enough to post repeatedly about Russia and the Ukraine, yet you don't know what goes on there.

So which is it?

I know what is going on in Ukraine and know enough to agree with Trump and Farage and Putin that we don't want a world war over it and I agree with Farage that "the EU has blood on its hands" because it was instrumental in backing the coup that toppled an elected President and brought the whole catastrophe about.

What else goes in in Russia, I don't know.

The media reporting is terribly biased.

Corbyn and his tiny "top team" are not electable. But can't be ousted because of the way the party runs and lots of unrealistic members whose views are in the minority in the UK.

I really don't want to see a huge Tory majority in 2020 but unless something huge happens with the world/tories that's what I think will happen. Depressing. We've had ten years of tories already, the first five moderated by the Lib Dems.

Bye bye NHS, social care.

'Magic circle' is another vacuous 'mean anything to anybody' terms.

I want to know what all these 'anti-Establishment' folk are offering 'the people'.

Hell, I want to know who 'the people' are.

How the hell can Farage, Trump, Corbyn and your good self all be answering the call of 'the people'?

It's not possible.

Tell us, Claig, who are 'the people'? What do 'they' want?

No empty tautologies, now. No saying 'the people are those who have seen through the establishment.' That, my friend, would be a veritable rhetorical see-saw of meaningless terms.

Well, I was thrilled with Jeremy Corbyn being chosen as Labour leader.

However, I think he's been a wimp about the EU referendum and worry about the anti-Semitic stance, pro Hamas and IRA.

I would never vote for a man like that. he's too old and set in his ways anyway

But fuck. Who is going to take on this awful Conservative way into the future!

Oh. Claig.

Just some awful right wing wanker non-stop on here.

Wait till Brexit reality hits UK. An island adrift in fairy tale land.

'I want to know what all these 'anti-Establishment' folk are offering 'the people'.'

Corbyn said it best

"The principle of democracy has to be ground up.

It is about breaking open this magical circle of Westminster, some of our great universities, Whitehall and the boardrooms who try to control thinking, control ideas and control the way policy is developed."

It is about democracy, about the people having a voice and letting the members decide policy etc. It is about better government that is truly representative of the majority will, as in Brexit, despite what Owen Smith and the "magic circle" prefer.

'How the hell can Farage, Trump, Corbyn and your good self all be answering the call of 'the people'?'

Because the peopel are diverse and there is no one answer. What matters is that there is real choice and real democracy and that we all abide by the majority democratically decided choice of the people as in Brexit. Whoever wins the argument and convinces the majority deserves power to implement the will of the majority. the best choice is the one the people choose, not you or I.

'Tell us, Claig, who are 'the people'? What do 'they' want?'

The people are the majority of the populatin and they want a government that listens to them, is not out of touch, is not run by lobbyists and the City and the "magic circle" and which will implement the policies that the majority want.

The majority of the population did not vote for Brexit.

'The majority of the population did not vote for Brexit.'

The majority of those who voted did. That is what counts. In a free country, you are entitled not to vote if you don't want to.

Yes, Iflyaway. The UK was extremely well-positioned to play awarding role in the future, with power, influence, and wealth.

Claig, and his/her ilk - with the opiate-like nonsense about 'taking back control from the Establishment for the people (both I interrogated terms) - have massively destabilised that position.

We need to ask a lot more questions, a lot harder, of anyone using these terms.

I think I may be one of 'the people'. What, exactly, are Farage/Trump/Aaron Banks/Corbyn planning in my name?

'I think I may be one of 'the people''

By the people, I mean the majority, not every individual such as Owen Smith for example.

'What, exactly, are Farage/Trump/Aaron Banks/Corbyn planning in my name?'

You wil have to read their manifestos and listen to their speeches to find out and decide if you agree.

My academic understanding of politics is sketchy, but is democracy what JC is describing here?

the people having a voice and letting the members decide policy

Aren't governments elected on the basis of their policies? How can a party be elected when their policy is "we rely on you to make the policies"?

It strikes me as a recipe for public disorder - "vote for us, we'll do whatever the majority of you want". Through intimidation, bullying and sheer brute strength, the strongest will ensure their cause is the majority view.

And what happens if JC personally disagrees with the majority? As leader, he has already voted against one motion agreed at the Party Conference.

I know there's is a proposal for party members to elect which MPs sit in shadow Cabinet positions. I'm unconvinced that will create an effective, successful, opposition. It'll make damn good watching, though.

Claig, if it's all about the majority you can forget all about both Farage and Corbyn. Their supporters are a tiny minority of the population.

But you already knew that didn't you.

'Aren't governments elected on the basis of their policies? How can a party be elected when their policy is "we rely on you to make the policies"?'

It has to be a combination of both which has collapsed in the Labour Party where the members are at odds with the 172. That is why Corbyn wants t change the system and make it more democratic, asking member sto vote for policies like was done in the old days of the 1970s at party conference. The gap between the members and the 172 is too wide and is similar to the attitude of thecatfromjapan who wants to "ask a lot more questions" of people who disagree with her like the 17.5 million who voted for Brexit which she doesn't agree with and which people she thinks have destabilised the position that she would have wanted. It is not about what any of us want, it is about what the majority want and nobidy is a "wanker" for being right wing or left wing or voting for Momentum or holding views that disagree with any of ours.

'Through intimidation, bullying and sheer brute strength, the strongest will ensure their cause is the majority view. '

No, that is a negative view of democracy which takes account of the majority view and nt the view of some insider clique or "magic circle" which Corbyn rightly says should be broken in order to allow the people's voice (the majority's) to be heard.

'And what happens if JC personally disagrees with the majority? As leader, he has already voted against one motion agreed at the Party Conference.'

Yes, he disagrees on some issues, but he has to acept the majority view in the end. He can vote for what he wants and disagre and campaign, but at the end of the day he has to abide by the majority decision, which he did over Syria in the end.

'Claig, if it's all about the majority you can forget all about both Farage and Corbyn. '

Yes, that is possibly true and that is fine, because it is about the majority in the end. However, politics is about campaigning and voting for what one believes, but if you lose, then that is it until the next vote.