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

Claig, why are you doing this?

Doing what?

Interesting.

Now 'the people' have magically become the differentiated population, with differentiated interests, spoken to differently, by the differing representatives of disparate groups.

Yet at the start of this thread, and throughout much of it, 'the people' are a loose mass, held in common by one singular feature: 'the people' are those who no longer trust democracy'; 'the people', who were blind, are those who are about to be liberated into vision of the truth by a very^ disparate bunch.

'the people no longer trust them [the 'elites/Establishment/magic circle] and their spin and lies.'

You say you're a UKIPPer, Claig. Are UKIP basically all about spreading a destabilising narrative of mistrust in democracy in the name of 'the people'?

What an odd, subterranean, manifesto.

Yes, Claig. I second *Kaija's question.

You're a bit like that diary in Harry Potter. And to paraphrase Mr Weasley, never trust anything whose intentions you can't quite make out.

What are your intentions, your aim, your 'why'? I don't recognise them. They are new to me. Please be clear.

'Now 'the people' have magically become the differentiated population, with differentiated interests, spoken to differently, by the differing representatives of disparate groups.'

Yes, that is why we have different parties that have different policies that appeal to different people.

''the people' are a loose mass,'

No, the people throughout are the majority.

'*the people no longer trust them'

Yes, the majority don't which is why they voted against the Establishment over Brexit and why Labour members are likely to vote for Corbyn above the 172.

'You say you're a UKIPPer, Claig. Are UKIP basically all about spreading a destabilising narrative of mistrust in democracy in the name of 'the people'?'

No, I said I voted UKIP, that doesn't make a Ukiper. I am not a member and may change my vote if I think some other party is better. You seem to think that people who disagree with your views and are anti the establishment and the "magic circle" mistrust democracy, but it is the opposite, as Corbyn said about the "magic circle", thse people want more democracy and want to end the monopoly of decision making that the "magic circle" enjoy so that a proper representative government that represents the democratic will of the people replaces them, such as what happened in Brexit.

' I don't recognise them. They are new to me. Please be clear.'

It seems that democracy and diversity of opinion are new to you. You ought to try and understand other people's point of view and respect their democratic opinions.

I am interested in politics because it is important because it is about how we are governed. Thse are the same reasons that Corbyn is in politics and I agree with him that a "magic circle" has too much influence on policy and that the country should be gverned mre democratically to represnt the people's will.

The reason I think it is important is because I think we are being badly governed by an out of touch political class which too often ignores the people. I think it could be a lot better and so does Corbyn.

The question is certainly not "why are you interested in politics", but rather why are you churning out this insane meandering nonsense day and night in which the right wing press, Trump, Farage, assorted other tax dodgers and now Corbyn are all apparently engaged in some kind of altruistic crusade for the common people.

I don't know about Magic Cirles and the like.

I met Mr Corbyn the other day after his seaside rally. He spent ages after his rabble-rousing speech talking with folk, doing their selfies with them all that . Then he got into a right old banger of a camper and off he went. I was surprised because I've never met a famous politician before, and he seemed like a proper nice sensible fella.

When I later saw Owen Smith mithering about the poor Labour party that's headed for terrible defeat because of dreadful Jeremy, I just seemed that it's hardly Jeremy's fault that he has this massive band of followers. Blame the Corbynistas, blame the foolish public that keep on voting for him.

That's whats wrong with the Media bias. There's not much wrong with Jeremy. He's just a politic man doing what he's spent his life doing. It's his supporters that have put him in this bonkers position. The media needs to blast them.

I am not churning it out day an night. I am on about 2 threads. this one is about media bias against Corbyn and you brught up Ukraine. Putin, what the Establishment is and what they want and I said it was off topic etc. I answer posts about Trump etc if someone mentions it because Trump is linked to Corbyn and Farage in their oppositin t the status quo and "magic circle".

You're flip-flopping with your definition of 'the people'. Now they're a disparate majority, a few paragraphs ago they were an object defined only by their oppositional positioning vis a vis the 'magic circle':

"[This isn't] 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."

In the above extract, 'the people' - again - become 'those that call for the 'magic circle' to be broken. You then equate 'the people' with 'the majority'. That's quite an assumption! Are they really 'the majority'?

And again I notice that 'the people' are, ultimately, defined by this extraordinarily nebulous concept of the 'magic circle'.

You are extremely fond of charismatic demagogues who claim to act/speak with 'the voice of the people'.

And to call for the destruction of conventional political and social apparatus in the name of this 'voice'.

And to identify conventional political and social apparatus with the dark workings of a nebulous, shadowy group, of undefined intent themselves.

All very mysterious. People reading your writing are invited to project anything into those two, essentially contentless signifiers ('the people'; 'the magic circle/Establishment/the elite).

And to project anything into that 'voice of the people': less red tape; fewer Oxbridge and Cambridge graduates in government; schools being allowed to serve small beer for breakfast. Anything. It's so inviting. So seductive. So meaningless.

But the call to the urge to 'shake everything up', to destabilise: that's not meaningless.

Is that what 'the voice of the people is yearning for?

Kaija: "The question is certainly not "why are you interested in politics", but rather why are you churning out this insane meandering nonsense day and night in which the right wing press, Trump, Farage, assorted other tax dodgers and now Corbyn are all apparently engaged in some kind of altruistic crusade for the common people."

I'm interested in the answer to this.

I am very interested. Because I, too, am interested in democracy.

lordStrange, it is even worse than that. They don't want a left wing government. Even if Corbyn won a general election, Blair wouldn't want it.

"Tony Blair says he wouldn’t want a left-wing Labour party to win an election

The former PM says he wouldn't take the 'route to victory' if it was left-wing"

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tony-blair-says-he-wouldn-t-want-a-left-wing-labour-party-to-win-an-election-10406928.html

That explains the hostility to Corbyn by the Establishment. What is so bad about a left wing government? Why don't they want it? The answer to that explains their hostility to Corbyn and to accepting the democratic will of the people if they decide to elect a left wing government.

'why are you churning out this insane meandering nonsense day and night in which the right wing press, Trump, Farage, assorted other tax dodgers and now Corbyn are all apparently engaged in some kind of altruistic crusade for the common people."'

Because I don't think it is meandering nonsense as you so kindly put it. I write what I believe and what I think is happening such as the media bias against Corbyn and the opposition to his potential left wing government and the Establishment's opposition to Farage and Trump for similar reasons of upsetting their status quo and delivering a government that takes more account of the people's will.

And now, 'The Establishment' is anyone who thinks Corbyn can''t win a General election.

It's like Shelley's 'Queen Mab'. A shapeshifting phantasmagoria that conveniently fits itself to every individual imagining.

This would not pass rigorous scrutiny. What a good thing that 'experts' - with their pesky demands for rigour, analysis, verifiability, quotation from checkable facts, counter-checking by other trained and accredited experts, and verifiable sourcing - are now disgraced as members of 'the Establishment'.

How convenient.

That link you put of Tony Blair is a year old. I think he was concerned about the Chilcott Report.

Tony Blair has elsewhere said [not quoting] We'd all love a left wing Labour Party but the country won't vote for it.

Claig: I write what I believe and what I think is happening such as the media bias against Corbyn and the opposition to his potential left wing government and the Establishment's opposition to Farage and Trump for similar reasons of upsetting their status quo and delivering a government that takes more account of the people's will.

But what do you believe?

The aims of Farage, Trump and Corbyn are very, very different.

But, apparently, you support them all because they will disrupt 'The Establishment'.

"The Establishment' is very different for those three figures.

'The Establishment' is a term with no real meaning.

Do you believe, simply, in destabilisation of the UK's (and US') institutions of governance?

How do you feel about the hacking of Clinton's emails? And the targetting of voting apparatus in some US states?

Is that also 'anti-Establishment' and therefore good?

By the way, 'the people's will', if it were the will of the majority, is delivering appalling feedback in terms of Corbyn's popularity rating.

How come that isn't the authentic 'will of the people'? Are they 'the Establishment'.

'Now they're a disparate majority, a few paragraphs ago they were an object defined only by their oppositional positioning vis a vis the 'magic circle':'

No, the people are nearly always opposite to the "magic circle" because the people are the majority and the "magic circle" is a tiny unelected clique who hold disproportionate unaccountable undemocratic power, a bit like the Brussels bureaucrats. The people are diverse which is why we have diverse parties and the people chanage their minds and vote for whatever they feel is best at different times and that will be different things, but what the majority decide is the will of the people.

'In the above extract, 'the people' - again - become 'those that call for the 'magic circle' to be broken. You then equate 'the people' with 'the majority'. That's quite an assumption! Are they really 'the majority'?'

Yes, that is why the people beat Cameron and the team and the Establishment and the "magic circle" over Brexit and that is why Corbyn rightly brought up the "magic circle".

'And again I notice that 'the people' are, ultimately, defined by this extraordinarily nebulous concept of the 'magic circle'.'

No, the people are the majority. The "magic circle" is just one thing taht Corbyn brought up and most of the people will have never heard of it, but it is a metaphor for how we are governed which is why Corbyn is right about that.

'ou are extremely fond of charismatic demagogues who claim to act/speak with 'the voice of the people'.'

I don't think Corbyn is a demagogue, I think he is a politician in tune with the people. Anyone who disagrees with you, you seem to view as a dangerous demagogue. That is not very democratic.

'So meaningless.'

It is meaningless to you, but clearly not to Corbyn who brought up the "magic circle" and to the 17.5 million people who disagreed with you and voted out of teh EU to reagin democratic control of the country from the unaccountable, unelected bureuacrats who made most of our laws.

'But the call to the urge to 'shake everything up', to destabilise: that's not meaningless.

Is that what 'the voice of the people is yearning for?'

Yes, which is why Dr Ben Carson and the forrner Governor of Arkansas., Mike Huckabee, who both ran for President of the US, said Trump is "shaking the system up" and "kicking down the doors".

Brexit was the same here. People want to change the staus quo. They are dissatisfied by how we are governed by an out of touch metropolitan elite which ignores the people.

Clearly you are for the status quo, but unfortunately for you, Cameron and the Remainers, the majority aren't.

What Farage, Trump and Corbyn have in common though is they each have a huge undeniable following. And they have their own rules not part of the status quo. We are in a brand new political era.

No, I think 'the people' may have wanted a variety of things in the Referendum. I doubt that the majority seriously want the status quo shaken up. I suspect that a majority want some specific, minor things changed but, the status quo, en masse, shaken up? I doubt it.

But, who knows? I haven't spoken to the UK. I've seen no surveys posing that question. So, I can't seriously speak in the name of 'the people'.

You, on the other hand, seem very confident in doing so.

Here's a thing: I'm a woman. I mistrust men who try and tell me what I want. They tend not to be very nice. I extend that mistrust to people who try and tell me they know what 'the people' want.

'The aims of Farage, Trump and Corbyn are very, very different.'

That is why I prefer Trump, then Farage, then Corbyn, but I prefer all three to the 172.

'The Establishment' is a term with no real meaning.'

Tell Owen Jones that. He spent a long time writing a book about it.

'Do you believe, simply, in destabilisation of the UK's (and US') institutions of governance?'

No, I am not an anarchist, I believe in a party winning power and forming a government which is why I vote.

'How do you feel about the hacking of Clinton's emails? And the targetting of voting apparatus in some US states?'

I think Hillary put some secrets of the United States at risk by storing emails and communications on unsecured servers and I think that seems negligent to me. It should not have happened and wouldn't if she had kept her communications secure. I agree with Trump that it is worrying about electronic voting and hackers because there is a possibility that some votes could possibly be rigged which wuld probably harm Trump's vote.

'Is that also 'anti-Establishment' and therefore good?'

No, the Establishment put the electronic voting machines in and awarded the contracts. I prefer paper ballots and minimal postal votes in order to minimize the possibility of elections being rigged.

'you, on the other hand, seem very confident in doing so.'

Yes because I take an interest in politics and think I am in tune with the majority which is why I voted for Brexit.

'I extend that mistrust to people who try and tell me they know what 'the people' want.'

That is fine, but I think I know what the majority want which is why I voted for Brexit, but I am not alays right, however I think I can spot the trend, but you don't have to believe me or agree with me. Maybe you reflect the majority view.

So what do you want to see in place of (the current) status quo.

Please don't reply with the empty and tautological "the will of the people."

Be specific, please.

'So what do you want to see in place of (the current) status quo.'

It doesn't matter what I want. It is the majority who count. I want more democracy, more referendums, local democracy and local referendums and a political class which is not subservient to lobbyists and does the best for the people. Corbyn is three quarters of the way there, but we will have to wait and see what he really offers.