The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[peterms]

33 minutes ago, blandy said:

For example the one on the BBC - it seems perfectly reasonable to me that when 175 Labour MPs voted no confidence in Corbyn ,and his cabinet resigned en masse, that the coverage of him during that 10 day period would be negative - it is after all a story about how  leader doesn't have the confidence of his parliamentary party. It is also my recollection that the BBC covered the story in more depth and detail, though I obviously didn't see all the bulletins.

The problem is not that a story was covered which was a big negative for Corbyn, but that on BBC news, but not other tv news channels, the content of the coverage gave disproportionate prominence to the views of one side compared to the other.

It's even more of a problem than that.  The resignations were carefully staged and timed for maximum media coverage.  The BBC, like everyone in media and almost everyone else, will have known that.  And yet they played along with it, rewarding the tactic with full coverage, and on top of that giving unbalanced airtime.  I would have expected both a more balanced approach, and also (perhaps I ask too much) some discussion of the tactics of the plotters and how they attempted to manipulate the media - not the uncritical playing along with the transparent game that we got.  That would have shown some real independence, explaining to viewers the tactics that spin doctors use to manipulate coverage.

33 minutes ago, blandy said:

There's also the point that no one is making any fuss over the study showing ITV or Sky coverage of Corbyn as being less than impartial because it showed more positive stories or more airtime than negative (in that short period).

There's another factor at play, too. The MRC study looks at the amount of seconds airtime given on news bulletins to critics/supporters. it also says that across the wider bbc the alleged bias wasn't there

The finding was that the others news channels managed to give more equal coverage to both sides of the story, as did the BBC online coverage.  The point is precisely that on BBC news channels, they decided regularly and repeatedly over that period not to achieve that balance.  Yes, the requirement is to achieve balance generally, not within each and every programme - but having unbalanced news channels is not somehow evened out by having a more balanced presentation online.

33 minutes ago, blandy said:

In essence it seems to reflect editorial policy in terms of prominence given to a news story over a short timescale on news programmes only. We often see stories where they go along the lines of "such and such a person was today accused of [detailed allegations and story]...and then at the end about 3 seconds of "they strenuously deny the allegations".

It's common to have such statements where someone doesn't want to appear, or will only supply a short written statement.  I don't think that is the case here.

 

[HanoiVillan]

7 minutes ago, peterms said:

The resignations were carefully staged and timed for maximum media coverage.  The BBC, like everyone in media and almost everyone else, will have known that. 

I agree that it looks that way, but that doesn't necessarily tally with what Steve Richards wrote at the time:

'. . . there was little co-ordination between the parliamentary rebels as they contemplated a coup.

The senior Labour MP, Margaret Hodge, sought a vote of no confidence in Corbynafter the referendum. The shadow cabinet did not know of her plans. Separately Hilary Benn had spoken to shadow cabinet colleagues about how they might remove Corbyn but did not know that his tentative moves would be front page news in that weekend’s Observer. When they were revealed Corbyn sacked him. Later several shadow cabinet members resigned.

The Labour rebels plotted separately and without a big candidate to take on Corbyn. In doing so they have inevitably become part of the current problem.'

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/22/labour-rebels-problem-jeremy-corbyn-owen-smith

[blandy]

1 minute ago, peterms said:

The problem is not that a story was covered which was a big negative for Corbyn, but that on BBC news, but not other tv news channels, the content of the coverage gave disproportionate prominence to the views of one side compared to the other.

It's even more of a problem than that.  The resignations were carefully staged and timed for maximum media coverage.  The BBC, like everyone in media and almost everyone else, will have known that.  And yet they played along with it, rewarding the tactic with full coverage, and on top of that giving unbalanced airtime.  I would have expected both a more balanced approach, and also (perhaps I ask too much) some discussion of the tactics of the plotters and how they attempted to manipulate the media - not the uncritical playing along with the transparent game that we got.  That would have shown some real independence, explaining to viewers the tactics that spin doctors use to manipulate coverage.

"Disproportionate" is a matter of opinion, not fact. It's fine as an opinion shared by yourself, Darren, the Corbyn supporting survey people or whoever else.

The staging aspect, I don't see as an issue at all in terms of media coverage. Yes, of course the MPs quitting etc. was timed in such a way as to get media attention. And the media gave it attention - how could they not? a leader being so overwhelmingly trashed by almost his whole parliamentary party. Unprecendented. As we know the situation is that the MPs think he's useless. So do I. It doesn't need spinning, it's raw and in the open. The media weren't manipulated by some shadowy spinners. The PLP has absolutely no faith in him, his abilities, his agenda, his prospects of winning at the next Gen election. And they're right.

Half of his opponent in the PLP are pygmies, for sure. The whole thing is a mess, but it isn't the fault of the BBC, or The Telegraph, or Rupert Murdoch or whichever hate figure. It's Labour's fault. Their mess.

All these momentum people, all these enthusiastic people signing up to Labour in hope. All these stale puffed up union leaders like Len McLuskey - they're all in one way or another, well meaning or not, selfless or self interested  - they're all contributing to the problems created by Milliband, Corbyn and the MPs.

Meanwhile the tories wreak havoc on the country. Well done Labour, you utter sack of tools.

[peterms]

6 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I agree that it looks that way, but that doesn't necessarily tally with what Steve Richards wrote at the time:

'. . . there was little co-ordination between the parliamentary rebels as they contemplated a coup.

The senior Labour MP, Margaret Hodge, sought a vote of no confidence in Corbynafter the referendum. The shadow cabinet did not know of her plans. Separately Hilary Benn had spoken to shadow cabinet colleagues about how they might remove Corbyn but did not know that his tentative moves would be front page news in that weekend’s Observer. When they were revealed Corbyn sacked him. Later several shadow cabinet members resigned.

The Labour rebels plotted separately and without a big candidate to take on Corbyn. In doing so they have inevitably become part of the current problem.'

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/22/labour-rebels-problem-jeremy-corbyn-owen-smith

Yes, I'm sure the coup in general was poorly planned and poorly co-ordinated, and several of the main movers will have been carefully watching each other as they tried to position themselves for maximum personal gain from the outcome.

But the drip feed of resignations was certainly carefully planned and timed, even to the extent of getting Kuenssberg to cover one live, with an air of breathless excitement like she was doing actual journalism rather than allowing herself to be used.

[peterms]

8 minutes ago, blandy said:

"Disproportionate" is a matter of opinion, not fact. It's fine as an opinion shared by yourself, Darren, the Corbyn supporting survey people or whoever else.

It relates to the amount of coverage given to representatives from each side, and to the requirement to achieve balance.  It's not a subtle thing like tone or nuance, it's being used here to describe observable, measurable, facts.  Which is why I refer to the consistent failure to achieve a rough balance in such as easily visible thing as brazen.  They know they are required to show balance; they (presumably consciously) chose not to do so, over an extended period; and they did so in respect of something which is very easily checked and measured.  Astonishing.

Referring to the presumed Corbynite preferences of people objecting to this does not address the issue.  Their opinion may well be that it is unacceptable.  Whether the lack of balance actually happened is not an opinion.

[tonyh29]

When Farage got stitched up by the media wasn't it greeted by much rejoicing by the same people  ( twitter brigade etc ) now lamenting  the unfair media treatment received by Corbyn ?

To my mind the media smell blood and when they do they don't let go  ( not just politics , but celebs as well  ), they are deliberately stoking the fire that Labour lit to sell news  ( you could say they are doing the Tory party bidding but I'm not convinced by this view ) ...

 

usually there is only one winner and it isn't the bloke with the beard that wont sing the National anthem but will bow before the Queen and take an oath  

[blandy]

4 minutes ago, peterms said:

It relates to the amount of coverage given to representatives from each side, and to the requirement to achieve balance.  It's not a subtle thing like tone or nuance, it's being used here to describe observable, measurable, facts.  Which is why I refer to the consistent failure to achieve a rough balance in such as easily visible thing as brazen.  They know they are required to show balance; they (presumably consciously) chose not to do so, over an extended period; and they did so in respect of something which is very easily checked and measured.  Astonishing.

Referring to the presumed Corbynite preferences of people objecting to this does not address the issue.  Their opinion may well be that it is unacceptable.  Whether the lack of balance actually happened is not an opinion.

I profoundly disagree. I also think to an extent that the "balance" argument is slightly specious. The survey looking at the 10 day window around the mass resignation of shadow cabinet MPs and vote of no confidence by the whole PLP was in essence a single issue based on the entire (almost) party asserting that Corbyn does not have their confidence. That is basically a matter of fact. All the media reported the facts. The extent to which different media outlets then covered the "analysis" is an editorial one - it's a metter of judgement as to how to look at the circumstances and what might happen next. It's not an issue where there needs to be equal balance between tow parties in General election coverage - it's internal Labour shenanigans being reported upon. The Corbyn supporting peopl'es survey found that BBC TV news gave more seconds of coverage over the 10 days to people resigning, to the many people essentially making the news, rather than the single person (and his few PLP supporters) who was on the end of it. That much is true. Whether it was disproportionate or wrong is opinion.

Basically BBC TV news gave a minute's extra coverage to people who resigned, or to covering their reasons, than did ITV. Other wise the coverage was the same. The wider BBC coverage wasn't found to be "biased" one way or the other. A narrow part of BBC coverage was selected and a conclusion drawn that rather fits in with the outlook of the people doing the survey. They went looking for something and eventually managed to find something that they wanted to see.

Like I say, people can find stuff to suit their confirmation biases. Corbyn's leadership is a car crash. I'm not surprised the PLP wanted rid of him. He threatens their jobs, he stands for things outside the Labour manifesto, he turns a blind eye to various horrors committed by enemies of his enemies, he stands sweetly by while his supporters misbehave, saying not a word of condemnation.

[Rodders]

 

on that last bit, you do slightly open yourself up a bit there blandy:

 

http://www.ft.com/fastft/2016/07/12/corbyn-condemns-brick-attack-on-eagles-office/

Quote

 

Mr Corbyn called the attack “extremely concerning”.

“As someone who has also received death threats this week and previously, I am calling on all Labour party supporters and members to act with calm and treat each other with dignity, even where there is disagreement. I utterly condemn any violence or threats, which undermine the democracy within our party and have no place in our politics.”

Helen Osgood, a constituency caseworker, told the Liverpool Echo: “This violence needs to stop. We cannot live in a society that is divided by hatred like this.”

Appealing to Labour voters, she said: “Let us just get behind whatever leader you choose in this challenge. But please stop this bad behaviour.”

Not really true. He just doesn't generally say it with bombast and energy, but then that's not his style. He says most things in the same tone. 

And on that particular issue for example - are people sure it was a brick:

https://wirralinittogether.wordpress.com/2016/07/17/brickgate-angela-eagles-office-window-was-not-broken/

 

 

On Monday 11th July, overnight, someone – nobody knows who – did fling that brick and did break a shared stairwell window (although Merseyside Police have yet to admit that there WAS a brick – see this FOI request).  It occurred on a well-used footpath linking a built up residential area to the shops in Liscard.  It’s only a mile away from where we live and we visited the site this evening after watching this video on Youtube:

 

Presumably plenty of reporters will also have visited the site last Tuesday morning, but the following headline in the Liverpool Echo (owners Trinity Mirror, publishers of the Daily Mirror) is blatantly untrue and remains uncorrected, three days later.  The article now stands uncorrected three months later after this failed complaint to press regulator IPSO:

Angela Eagle’s constituency office attacked as Labour crisis deepens

The YouTube video above very clearly explains how Angela Eagle’s office windows were not targeted.  They were left untouched.  But it appears that somebody connected to Ms Eagle or possibly Ms Eagle herself, when briefing the press pack, has allowed their dishonesty or their desire to misrepresent what happened to get the better of them.

Before proceeding with this, it’s worth pausing and taking a step back.  We’re not rushing to meet a deadline at the expense of truth and accuracy, so let’s evaluate and take some time to put this whole incident into a wider context.

It’s worth doing this, because the mainstream media who ‘covered it’ on 12th July 2016 don’t appear to have bothered.

....

[/quote[

 

Edited September 26, 2016 by Rodders

[darrenm]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

On the last page you mentioned 'snidey articles with false assertions pretending to be balanced' or very similar in the Guardian. I was wondering if you could provide a link to these articles. 

This one for example https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/25/labour-moderates-learn-lessons-team-corbyn-andrew-rawnsley

" He had barely started to introduce himself before a ruthlessly efficient effort by Team Corbyn had already defined him as a former employee of big pharma and a “Trojan horse” for Blairite revanchism."

According to who?

"The more conventionally minded of us might think that, in a parliamentary democracy, it is quite important for a party leader to command the confidence of his MPs"

Unnecessary sarcasm. We all know that Corbyn doesn't/didn't have the support or confidence of most of this MPs. But we all know how and why that happened. The MPs land more to the right of centre and Corbyn and the Labour members aren't right-wing enough for them.

"One MP speaks about “taking bodyguards” to protect him at the conference. Another expresses genuine fear that fist fights – or worse – will break out in Liverpool."

I'd like the names of these MPs with their quotes. Otherwise it's putting a negative slant on the Corbyn victory. There shouldn't be anything negative about a leadership challenge that was shown to be hugely misplaced and then confirmed that we had the right leader all along should there?

There's loads more in there. I accept it is reporting on what's happening but it's from the position of an out of touch butthurt MP who didn't realise how far out of kilter they were with the members. The members might be out of kilter with the voters but that remains to be seen. I'd like facts reported rather than shadowy quotes from unnamed people which is just to introduce FUD.

[tonyh29]

27 minutes ago, darrenm said:

"One MP speaks about “taking bodyguards” to protect him at the conference. Another expresses genuine fear that fist fights – or worse – will break out in Liverpool."

I'd like the names of these MPs with their quotes. 

Ruth Smeeth is named in another paper ...how hard did you look ?

Edited September 26, 2016 by tonyh29
forgot the smiley

[snowychap]

2 hours ago, darrenm said:

Another expresses genuine fear that fist fights – or worse – will break out in Liverpool.

I know it's quoted out of context but that bit made me chuckle.

Take back your call for elections to the shadow cabinet, you cad.

[blandy]

2 hours ago, Rodders said:

 

on that last bit, you do slightly open yourself up a bit there blandy:

 

http://www.ft.com/fastft/2016/07/12/corbyn-condemns-brick-attack-on-eagles-office/

Did you see the interview on Channel 4 news with the MP who hadn't even criticised JC, but was subjected to bullying? We (this board) discussed it a few months ago.(from the not anti Corbyn Indie)

Quote

Ms Baxter, who was close to tears, added: “The most upsetting thing for me as a member of the NEC – I know that Jeremy has constantly spoken against bullying behaviour and I applaud him for that and I respect that – but when it came to the vote to protect colleagues taking an extremely difficult decision that would determine the future of our party he voted against the single thing that he could have done to protect colleagues.”
Her obvious distress did not protect Ms Baxter from caustic Twitter attacks by Corbyn supporters. One wrote: “Who is that boo-hooing Labour Scotswoman boo-hooing…her voice trembling? No more women in politics. Return to the kitchen!”

Another wrote: “A histrionic Johanna Baxter displaying lamentable lack of vertebrae. Self pity amid the NEC banning new members’ voting rights.”

Ms Baxter retorted: “I speak out against bullying and get this.”

“The leader of the Labour party voted against the proposal that we conduct our vote in private in order to protect NEC members who were receiving threats, bullying and intimidation. He voted against it. He endorsed bullying, threats and intimidation, by the fact of that vote.

“The only reason to vote against that is so the intimidation can continue. It’s the most shameful act I have ever seen. He showed his true colours in that vote. I have had people tweet and post my personal mobile online, directing people to me, directing their mob at me.

“They just say: ‘Oh it’s nothing to do with us, Jeremy can’t be held to account for everyone in the world.’ I’m sorry, but he endorsed it,” she said

There are loads and loads of examples.

Quote

 

...Proceedings kicked off with a rant from a self-styled, uninvited (we hope), unappointed, unelected hard-Left – and therefore self-righteous – activist in a parka who proceeded to attack Ruth Smeeth MP, who was in the audience, for conspiring with the right wing media over the issue that has done the party so much damage.

The obnoxious individual – who turned out, of course, to be a member of Momentum, Corbyn’s Praetorian Guard – probably thought “job done” when Ruth, a Jewish MP, duly left the meeting in tears. The hard left are not known for their progressive attitude towards either women or Jews.

When Parkaman was duly told to shut up by attending hacks, Corbyn resumed his own comments. The room waited for his response and for his words of condemnation of Parkaman and for his words of support for Ruth.

It waited in vain...

 

 

[peterms]

4 hours ago, blandy said:

I also think to an extent that the "balance" argument is slightly specious. The survey looking at the 10 day window around the mass resignation of shadow cabinet MPs and vote of no confidence by the whole PLP was in essence a single issue based on the entire (almost) party asserting that Corbyn does not have their confidence. That is basically a matter of fact. All the media reported the facts. The extent to which different media outlets then covered the "analysis" is an editorial one - it's a metter of judgement as to how to look at the circumstances and what might happen next. It's not an issue where there needs to be equal balance between tow parties in General election coverage - it's internal Labour shenanigans being reported upon. The Corbyn supporting peopl'es survey found that BBC TV news gave more seconds of coverage over the 10 days to people resigning, to the many people essentially making the news, rather than the single person (and his few PLP supporters) who was on the end of it. That much is true. Whether it was disproportionate or wrong is opinion.

 

Well, the airtime given to Corbyn's critics was twice as much as that given to his supporters.  That is disproportionate.  That's not opinion, just stating the obvious.

The Corbyn opponents are a clear majority of the PLP and a clear minority of the party, as we have seen twice in a year.  There are two opposed camps, with strongly held views.  (There's an interesting story there about how the minority have managed over many years to place their people in the PLP through misuse of the party machine, but I don't expect we'll see much coverage of that).

Should they balance both sides of an issue where there is a clear divide?  And should they do so within the programme?  The report notes what the BBC Trust have said about this:

Quote

...the BBC Trust has in the past emphasised the need for ‘mainstream’ news programmes to demonstrate impartiality within, as well as across, its output. In its comprehensive review of the breadth of opinion in BBC output carried out in 2013, the Trust also made clear that whilst it is fitting for wider programming to explore the ‘wagon wheel’ of diverse views on any given topic, news programmes are rightly inclined to focus on the most prominent binary or opposing views...

Apart from the question of balance, there's also an issue about constructing the frame through which people see the events.  The resignations, and the act of timing them as a sequence of apparently separate events, are part of the framing that the Corbyn opponents sought to create.  You accept that framing, and that's fine.  The BBC accepted that framing and acted accordingly, and that's not fine.  They are supposed to be acting in a balanced way, unlike you or me or any other individual.  Part of that should include understanding when people are trying to manipulate news coverage, and resisting it.  They failed to do so, and that is unacceptable.  I gather much of Alistair Campbell's time used to be spent shouting at BBC staff in an attempt to bully them into accepting the frame he wanted.  Perhaps they resist less these days.

4 hours ago, blandy said:

A narrow part of BBC coverage was selected and a conclusion drawn that rather fits in with the outlook of the people doing the survey. They went looking for something and eventually managed to find something that they wanted to see.

The point the study makes, fairly in my view, is that this is the flagship news coverage offered by the BBC, and something which carries weight with people.  By calling it a "narrow part" of the coverage, you minimise and play down the importance of the main BBC TV news as an influencer of opinion.  It is a major source of news, and it is widely believed because it is thought to be impartial.  That is, I believe, why the BBC Trust take the view that impartiality within news programmes is important - they recognise that this perception of impartiality exists, and that it is therefore important that something widely trusted as impartial should in fact strive to be so.  As the report says,

Quote

Regularly reaching in excess of four million viewers per day, the BBC’s main evening bulletins are the most widely used news programmes and the BBC is the UK’s most trusted news source.

[blandy]

37 minutes ago, peterms said:

They are supposed to be acting in a balanced way, unlike you or me or any other individual.  Part of that should include understanding when people are trying to manipulate news coverage, and resisting it.  They failed to do so, and that is unacceptable

The balance thing. Say for example I dunno, Ian Duncan Smith were to have resigned from a position, or Geoffrey Howe, or any number of others. The news coverage has in my recollection always tended to focus on "why did he resign" and "what did he say or claim or give as his reasons" when he resigned. I'm not talking about people like the disgraced Liam Fox, but people who resign because they disagree with a party leader. While there will be some mention of the leader said that [ whatever ], the coverage concentrates on the resigning person. Now multiply that by 15 or however many resigned at once, and then add in a massive vote of no confidence. Sorry but a minute more airtime spent on the people doing the resigning is to me not disproportionate, nor unbalanced. It matches the weight of the event, or editorially could be reasonably claimed to do so. It's an utterly unprecedented situation in UK politics and looking at the reasons for it, the negatives if you like, is fair enough. It's not like they gave whole programmes over to the opponents of Corbyn, we're talking about a difference of about one minute, according to the graph, ( it could be 10 minutes over 2 weeks in total, it's not that clear), but either way not a significant imbalance evidence the train of events.

There's a wider problem with a requirement for balance regarding factual events. Do you allow the other side of the "debate" equal prominence and airtime?  Global warming deniers?, conspiracy theorists? And so on.

The labour people resigned and did a no confidence massive majority. Those are facts. Asking why is more pertinent than giving exactly equal time to someone to say that they shouldn't have done so.

Come deeper analysis programming of the various views within Labour, then there should be a equal balance between  people supporting Corbyn and those opposing him and those in the middle, too - looking at his overall record and policies and story if you like. But the 6 o clock news (only) is just a short news bulletin giving the main events.

I wonder why the study doesn't mention the longer and later 10 o'clock news as being " biased? Perhaps because the later news coverage is and was more about the reasons and background and less about breaking events and quick reactions? And doesn't take support the Corbyn people's sense of victim hood.

It can play quite well, this "Establishment is out to get us" thing, play to the audience of believers, Stoke the fires of revolution. Or maybe it's all just so unfair that they'll scweam and scweam and scweam.

[peterms]

40 minutes ago, blandy said:

It's an utterly unprecedented situation in UK politics and looking at the reasons for it, the negatives if you like, is fair enough. It's not like they have whole programmes over to the opponents of Corbyn, we're talking about a difference of about one minute, according to the graph,  it could be 10 minutes over 2 weeks in total, it's not that clear, but either way not a significant imbalance evidence the train of events

A minute difference if it's 14 minutes versus 15 minutes is no big deal.  But when it's this, then that is quite a different matter.

Yes, that is a significant imbalance.

Again, the framing is interesting.  If you see it as Corbyn being wildly out of step, you might see that as some kind of justification for departing from the balance otherwise expected.  If you see the PLP as being the ones out of step with the majority of the party, that might give another perspective.  So is the story "How did Labour come to have a leader who is so far away from the PLP", or is it "How come the PLP is so far away from their own party members"?  Actually, both are interesting to explore, but the idea that it's only the first that counts is something those who oppose Corbyn might like, but not a balanced way of even approaching the subject.

40 minutes ago, blandy said:

There's a wider problem with a requirement for balance regarding factual events. Do you allow the other side of the "debate" equal prominence and airtime?  Global warming deniers?, conspiracy theorists? And so on.

In questions of science, where the balance of opinion is as clear as it is on global warming, I really wouldn't expect the issue to be presented as a case of there being two sides so let's give them equal weight.  In fact one problem has been that they give airtime to numbnuts Lawson spinning on behalf of the lobbyists who make money from opposing measures to tackle climate change, and pitch him alongside proper scientists as though there was some kind of equivalence of value to their thoughts.  This is really not a good comparison with politics.

[peterms]

Useful piece here on how Corbyn would be viewed as mainstream social democrat in Norway, whereas the dominant media tone here is that he's some kind of crazed revolutionary.

Quote

As a Scandinavian who has spent more than a decade living in Britain, nothing has made me feel more foreign than observing the current Labour leadership election. From his style to his policies Mr Corbyn would, in Norway, be an unremarkably mainstream, run-of-the-mill social-democrat. His policy-platform places him squarely in the Norwegian Labour Party from which the last leader is such a widely respected establishment figure that upon resignation he became the current Secretary-General of NATO.

Yet, here in the United Kingdom a politician who makes similar policy-proposals, indeed those that form the very bedrock of the Nordic-model, is brandished as an extremist of the hard-left and a danger to society...

 

[blandy]

Corbyn is not many of the things he is accused of by the likes of the Sun and quite a few of his policies are attractive. A fair few appeal to me, they always have. Unfortunately he's incompetent as a leader, as well as foolish in his choice of friends and inflexible in his thinking. He has little or no vision or strategy to win over people who previously voted tory or lib dem, even. He picks fights he can't win and doesn't take opportunities where he could have won. He sees enemies where there are none and turns allies into opponents.

He's a massive help to the tories. While his supporters fulminate about 180 seconds of coverage on BBC 6 o'clock news, over 10 days compared to 100 seconds over the same period, they might persuade a few people who tend to think they're the victims of a conspiracy to support them, but the rest of the country, nah.

[darrenm]

4 hours ago, blandy said:

Corbyn is not many of the things he is accused of by the likes of the Sun and quite a few of his policies are attractive. A fair few appeal to me, they always have. Unfortunately he's incompetent as a leader, as well as foolish in his choice of friends and inflexible in his thinking. He has little or no vision or strategy to win over people who previously voted tory or lib dem, even. He picks fights he can't win and doesn't take opportunities where he could have won. He sees enemies where there are none and turns allies into opponents.

He's a massive help to the tories. While his supporters fulminate about 180 seconds of coverage on BBC 6 o'clock news, over 10 days compared to 100 seconds over the same period, they might persuade a few people who tend to think they're the victims of a conspiracy to support them, but the rest of the country, nah.

I completely disagree. I think the Tories are terrified of him which is why he's painted in these ways. But each to their own (y)

[Mantis]

14 minutes ago, darrenm said:

I completely disagree. I think the Tories are terrified of him which is why he's painted in these ways. But each to their own (y)

Trust me, the Tories aren't terrified of him.

[Chindie]

Yes the only people terrified of him are in the Labour Party.