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

"Corporate Watch

Has the Guardian exploited tax loopholes to save millions?

Despite the Guardian splashing their campaigning investigations into tax avoidance across the front page, the paper’s parent company has been using convoluted but legal techniques to avoid paying tax, according to Private Eye.

Guardian Media Group, publisher of the Guardian and its sister the Observer, has been accused of running a tax avoidance scheme by the satirical magazine."

www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/05/16/has-the-guardian-exploited-tax-loopholes-to-save-millions/

"The Labour Party avoided paying tax on £4.3 million worth of profits last year, according to the latest figures from the Electoral Commission.

The revelation came the same day Jeremy Corbyn announced he will fund £500 billion of investment through tackling tax evasion.

In 2015, Labour ran a surplus of £4.3 million, but paid zero tax, while the Conservative Party ran a surplus of just over £1 million and paid £238,000 in tax. "

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/05/labour-avoided-paying-tax-on-43-million-worth-of-profits-last-ye/

'You wouldn't be looking to government to collect more tax from these people?'

I would want them to get more tax from the rich because I don't believe that the middle class should be squeezed for any more. They should get tax from the big corporations, hedge funds, banks and City institutions as well as rich individuals. I beleiev in tax cuts for the working and middle class and a reduction of our tax money to the "magic circle" so that they can't waste it on their pet projects and can spend it on essentials like health, infrastructure and education.

No hero worshiping of Corbyn

Again something that supporters deny and others can see

I have never known a leader of a political party with such ardent supporters and ones who are very very vocal

'I have never known a leader of a political party with such ardent supporters and ones who are very very vocal'

I agree. It has shocked the Establishment and the 172. They have never seen anything like it. But it is just a sign that many people have had enough of the same old, same old and that Corbyn offers them hope. It is a good thing that politics offers people hope for real change.

There is nothing good about a leader of a political party being beyond reproach by his supporters

I am mistaken we have seen this before with dictators not suggesting he is but I have not seen this with any political party leaders in this country

'but I have not seen this with any political party leaders in this country'

I agree but it just goes to show how much hope people have invested in him and his message and how little faith they have in the Blairites, the Establishment, the 172 and all the rest. People have been let down and they hope that Corbyn can fix things. The "magic circle" should listen and learn rather than try their best to overturn the Labour members' wishes.

Used to live ins one party state country- I know what blind hero worship looks like. OP, you are text book.

But him being beyond reproach

No leader should ever be no matter how much you agree with their political agenda

He has tapped into a group of people that have felt that those in the main parties do not hold the same political outlook as they have that now plus he is the leader of the opposition

These people have been renamed as grassroot supporters nothing to do with them being the traditional working class supporters because many are not they are mainly mc socialists they share his lack of desire for material wealth (as life has been relatively comfortable, very compared to some) or social mobility

Corbyn couldn't fix a leaking tap.

' they are mainly mc socialists they share his lack of desire for material wealth (as life has been relatively comfortable, very compared to some) or social mobility'

What is the source of this? Is it the 172?

I find it hard to believe as one minute we are told by the 172 that the new members are Trots, Socialist Workers and hard left and then we are told that they are wealthy and comfortably off.

It is the Blair supporters wh are mainly middle class and share his metropolitan beliefs of student tuition fees of £9000 odd and possibly rising, part privatisation of the health service and no problem with people being stinking rich.

It is the Corbynistas who want tuition fees scrapped, nationalised rail, an end to privatisation and more union rights. That is more traditionally working class than middle class.

What is new and different about Corbyn is that he is Old Labour and therefore gives hope to lots of people that things can really change.

Overlooking to tortuous English for a moment ('old' labour is 'new and different'. ??) what was it about 'old' labour that caused 'the people' to lose faith/support in it?

What has changed, and what evidence is there that repeating history will be different this time?

'what was it about 'old' labour that caused 'the people' to lose faith/support in it?'

The times, but the times are a-changing. The pubblic mood is swinging and has swung against the Establishment which is why we beat them in Brexit.

'What has changed, and what evidence is there that repeating history will be different this time?'

Things have got worse for millions of people. There is less social mobility than in the 1970s, we had a Cabinet stuffed full of Old Etonians, people can't afford to buy homes in huge numbers as house prices rise and there is a lack of new builds. There is a shortage of council homes and higher rents as well as much greater immigration and pressure on services. Jobs are now less secure as Blair failed to reverse union restrictions and employers now offer zero-hour contracts etc. Free university tuition is gone and people are clocking up large debts in an attempt to better themselves by educating themselves.

The rich and fat cats have got richer, the 1%'s wealth has increased while the people have had to suffer austerity to pay the bankers and fat cats back who caused the financial crash from which the entire world has still not fully recovered after 8 years where interest rates are at zero and are going negative in some countries.

That explains the rise of Corbyn and the Corbynistas.

This is no hero worship of Corbyn. The only group who stand to benefit from a broken Labour Party are the extreme right wing in this country: UKIP and/or whatever new party Arron Banks is planning if Diane James doesn't get the leadership.

Corbyn has nothing close to the support needed to take Labour into power. He has just enough though to destroy the party and leave the field wide open for UKIP/Banks. And the more people can be persuaded that Corbyn and UKIP are not so different, the more easily UKIP can move into that territory.

That explains the rise of Corbyn and the Corbynistas.

I agree with all the reasons you give for this, but just because there is a rise in "old" labour (all be it that it is being lauded as "new and different") there's absolutely no reason to think it will be successful, is there?

If Corbyn is "old" labour, isn't he just going to go the same way as "old" labour did?

No it's observation to interviews, forums, being working class myself (though of course I do not speak for every wc person)

Champagne socialism has a far broader appeal than Corbyn socialism

People want to achieve, have the choice to send their children to private school

They want a fair society but most wc people don't want the rich necessarily to have less (obviously not taking about tax dodging) they want what they have or what the mc have and the choices it brings in life

'If Corbyn is "old" labour, isn't he just going to go the same way as "old" labour did?'

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 as Labour MP John Mann, who was for Brexit, said and that is why the Northern Labour heartlands are increasingly moving to UKIP as they feel abandoned by the Oxbridge metropolitan elite who were put in charge of Labour. They are back challenging Corbyn yet again after his victory which had the biggest mandate in UK politicak history. The "magic circle" hopes that the 172 will beat Corbyn, but I think Corbyn will thrash them once again.

'Champagne socialism has a far broader appeal than Corbyn socialism'

I doubt it because champagne socialism doesn't fix people's housing and employment and health problems. Wait until Corbyn tells working class people what he will do for them to solve the issues they are facing, that is when we will see a rise in the Labour vote as at last someone offers to fix and solve people's problems.

enthusiasm I agree - based on my own observations. Has there been any work done on the socio demographics of corbynistas?

I'm guessing there is little point - unless it says what corbynistas want to hear, they will dismiss it as 'magic circle propaganda' and the right wing antiestablishment camp will deride anything from "experts" irrespective of what it says.

I'm not a woo person, on the whole. But, I have read a bit about "The Age of Aquarius" and how it is predicted societies will change. So far, I have to say, the predictions seem to be fairly accurate. A move away from individual attachment to political ideologies, and towards individuals having the confidence in themselves and their own knowledge, without a need for attachment to leadership or ideology.

Scares the shit out of me, to be honest!

EnthusiasmDisturbed, you are right. I am from Essex which is the heart of the aspirational working class where we voted for Thatcher in droves because she offered us a way up based on merit.

If Labour can ditch some of their dogma about hindering aspiration and solve people's problems and offer opportunities, then people will back them again. But Labour have been taken over by a set of metropolitan Oxbridge graduates who have little in common with working people which is why they are out of touch.

Corbyn can walk into any pub and fit in whereas an Oxbridge geek like Miliband or Blair wouldn't fit in in the gritty Northern Labour clubs.

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?

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

??

'Ok, so last time "old labour" was suppressed, it was by the Blairites'

Yes because the times were different. We had had 18 years of Thatcherism and she had transformed the country and the political landscape and had defeated Old Labour, which is why Blair changed Labour, scrapped Clause 4, introduced the Oxbridge spinmeisters and their pagers and sucked up to Murdoch.

But now times have changed again. No one listens to Blair and Brown any more. they are wheeled out by the Establishment whenerver there is a referendum but they are in fact counter-productive now and no one listens to them any more apart from the 172 and the "magic circle". Labour members rejected the Oxbridge candidates for leadership and voted in a backbencher that nobody had heard of, Corbyn. It is a revolutiion that indicates how far the public has changed.

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

Yes. they all have weaknesses, particularly the 172.

Corbyn has lots of weaknesses now as Enthusiasm has stated, but that doesn't mean he can't overcome them if he offers a positive vision.

'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?'

Because times have changed, the public mood has changed. The SNP thrashed Labour and called them Red Tories. The public beat the Establishment over Brexit, all their spin and threats were for naught. We are going through the biggest populist anti-establishment upheaval the entire Western world has seen for decades - Trump, Farage, Corbyn, Brexit. The "magic circle" is at a loss of what to do. They wheeled Blair out but that went down like a lead balloon. Owen Smith is their new hope but he puts his foot in his mouth even when he has it shut. He spends more time apologizing for what he has said than promoting the 172's policies.

Times have changed and politics have changed. Nobody foresaw Trump, nobody foresaw Brexit and nobody foresaw Corbyn, least of all the "magic circle" and the 172.

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?

'Why so much animosity towards the 172?'

I am not sure there is animosity towards them. I think there is mockery of them and Owen Smith and also booing at some hustings etc, which Corbyn has said should stop.

'They were selected because of who they are. '

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

'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 '

I don't think so, I think they know full well the different level of support Corbyn has compared to Owen Smith. You just have to look at the rallies and hustings' applause and social media etc etc

'Can they continue when their mandate from "the people" is at odds with the party's mandate to their leader?'

I don't think the people are interested. It is really only about Labour members and there is a split between the members and the 172.

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