Jeremy Corbyn 2

436 posts / 0 new
Last post
mark_alfred

Corbyn rallying the troops for the upcoming election.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-snap-general...

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Our report found that 75% of press coverage misrepresents Jeremy Corbyn – we can't ignore media bias anymore

In many democracies across the world new political leaders get a so-called honeymoon period. As our analysis of the journalistic representation of Jeremy Corbyn’s first two months as party leader in eight national newspapers demonstrates, this did not apply to Corbyn. Our rigorous and statistically representative analysis concluded that when it comes to the coverage of Corbyn in his role as leader of the opposition, the majority of the press did not act as a critical watchdog of the powers that be, but rather more often as an antagonistic attackdog.

Over half of the news articles were critical or antagonistic in tone, compared to two thirds of all editorials and opinion pieces. Besides the almost total lack of support in the latter, especially in the rightwing media, the high level of negativity in the news reporting struck us as noteworthy here. According to the Independent Press Standards Organization (IPSO), newspapers are obliged to ‘make a clear distinction between comment, conjecture and fact’ and this also did not apply to Corbyn. Furthermore, Corbyn’s voice is often absent in the reporting on him, and when it is present it is often presented in a highly distorted way. In terms of the news sources used in the articles, the civil war within Labour is very enthusiastically amplified. In most newspapers, including The Daily Mirror and The Independent, Labour voices that are anti-Corbyn outweigh those that are pro-Corbyn.....

josh

Yeah, but if they're biased against the left, it just means they're "fair and balanced."

Aristotleded24

epaulo13 wrote:
In many democracies across the world new political leaders get a so-called honeymoon period. As our analysis of the journalistic representation of Jeremy Corbyn’s first two months as party leader in eight national newspapers demonstrates, this did not apply to Corbyn. Our rigorous and statistically representative analysis concluded that when it comes to the coverage of Corbyn in his role as leader of the opposition, the majority of the press did not act as a critical watchdog of the powers that be, but rather more often as an antagonistic attackdog.

[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_yrAD69fLQ]What's your opinion of Jeremy Corbyn 20 years ago sticking his willy in a woman?[/url]

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

nicky wrote:

This on a pro-Labour blog:

http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2017/04/19/corbyns-a-disaster-but-we-must-figh...

In the end, it’s a question of whether it will be 50, 100 or 150 seats we lose. And that’s worth fighting for.

We can choose to do nothing, and let everything fall apart. Or choose to resist, for what will come after the election. This party has been a great force for good in this country and it can be again. But it is on life-support. It needs help. This election is about staunching the flow of blood out of the wound, so as not to kill the patient. Saving those seats we can. Fighting not just the Tories without but the far left within.

The only sensible choice is to hold your nose and vote for Jeremy Corbyn. He will never become prime minister, so your conscience is perfectly clear. Hold your nose and door-knock. Hold your nose and come out for your decent local councillor or MP, who deserve better than this.

In Hugh Gaitskell’s brilliant, defiant words: to fight, fight and fight again, to save the party we love.

Labour Uncut hasn't been a "pro-Labour blog" for years now.  It is to the right of Tony Blair on policy, and has spent the last two years treating Jeremy Corbyn as though he has no right to be leader.

Labour Uncut supports the benefits cap and the savage "sanctions" regime imposed on benefits claimants, in which thos claimants are forced to prove they need the benefits over and over and over again...even if they are bedridden and housebound.

There would be no difference between a Labour leader Labour Uncut would approve of(they still want a quasi-Tory like David Miliband or Liz Kendall-and just keeping Theresa May in power.

nicky

If t you thought I have been unconvinced by Corbyn, here is a Labour commentator's view:

http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2017/04/20/corbyn-has-doomed-labour-time-to-vo...

josh

nicky wrote:

If t you thought I have been unconvinced by Corbyn, here is a Labour commentator's view:

http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2017/04/20/corbyn-has-doomed-labour-time-to-vo...

I guess Ken Burch's post just whizzed by you.

nicky

Josh, I guess that a 100o objective assessments of Corbyn by sincere Labour supporters just whizzed right by you.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Labour Uncut is not objective by any measure.  It never ever gave Corbyn a chance, even when the 2016 revote put the leadership issue to rest.

You seem to have missed the passage in the link you posted in which the author called on sitting Labour MPs to resign the whip and stand AGAINST the party at the general election. 

nicky

then look at New Statesman, Labourlist, Leftfootforward and the Guardian. All ususally Labour media outlets and all appalled at Corbyn's leadership.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

The Guardian has supported the LibDems in recent years.

Look...the election is actually underway.  You do realize that it's too late for Labour to choose a new leader before polling day, right?

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

The PLP should just agreed to guaratee that there'd be a left candidate on the next leadership ballot.  It was never reasonable to expect Corbyn to go without any guarantee that the left-wing majority of the party would be given a chance to elect anyone other than a centrist as leader.  No centrist MP would be capable of caring about working people and human need-people who put balanced budgets first are promising not to help the poor. 

josh

Maybe after this is all over the left should let someone like Liz Kendall take over the leadership.  And then spend all their time undercutting, bad mouthing and back stabbing her.  

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

If the PLP gets its way and Labour is reduced to 50 seats that will be a moot point.  No Labour comeback could ever happen at that level, and if a Liz Kendall-Rachel Reeves type does become leade(it goes without saying the the remnant of the PLP would not allow anyone to Kendall's left to stand)that leader will simple lead the rest of the MPs over to the Tory bench and be done with it.  No election in the UK would ever matter again.

nicky

No, the PLP wants a labour Party that can actually get elected.

The Corbynites would prefer a much reduced party controlled by their little myopic sect rather than one that can appeal to the broader electorate, get into power and actually achieve something for its voters.

Aristotleded24

nicky wrote:
then look at New Statesman, Labourlist, Leftfootforward and the Guardian. All ususally Labour media outlets and all appalled at Corbyn's leadership.

Where did these publications stand on Tony Blair's invasion of Iraq in 2003? Where do these publications currently stand on bombing Syria?

All my friends think I should walk off a cliff. Ergo, it is a good idea for me to walk off a cliff.

josh

Aristotleded24 wrote:

nicky wrote:
then look at New Statesman, Labourlist, Leftfootforward and the Guardian. All ususally Labour media outlets and all appalled at Corbyn's leadership.

Where died these publications stand on Tony Blair's invasion of Iraq in 2003? Where do these publications currently stand on bombing Syria?

Not positive on all of them.  But I know where the overwhelming majority of the PLP stood. 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

josh wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

nicky wrote:
then look at New Statesman, Labourlist, Leftfootforward and the Guardian. All ususally Labour media outlets and all appalled at Corbyn's leadership.

Where died these publications stand on Tony Blair's invasion of Iraq in 2003? Where do these publications currently stand on bombing Syria?

Not positive on all of them.  But I know where the overwhelming majority of the PLP stood. 

And that's the biggest reason the PLP(at least a majority of whom only hold their current seats because Blair or Gordon Brown imposed them as candidate against the wishes of their own constituency party) hate Jeremy Corbyn.  They cannot forgive him for being right about the futility of that war and for standing with the antiwar majority in the UK(a majority that had no way to express itself in the 2005 election because NO party stood for peace) against them. 

​They STILL think it was right to slaughter hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, Aghanis, then huge numbers of Libyans a few years later, and they now want to do what they already know never works to Syria.

mark_alfred

Good press here.  Corbyn entertains kids with his funny faces while reading a story to them.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/faces-jeremy-corbyn-pulled-reading...

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Was it a story about a magical land, part of a larger Kingdom, where people were happy and prosperous until some Ogres voted to leave that Kingdom, and suddenly the Long Cold Winter came?

"Oooooh!", said the book!  "This doesn't seem a wise choice at all!"

"Aaaaah!" said the villain.  "We're tired of all these travellers visiting our lands, and taking our good apprenticeships!"

"But wait!!!", said the Frumpy Prince.  "I can save us all, but you'll need to close your eyes really tight, and wish good wishes, and believe!  Every last one of you!"

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

It's not cool to still be attacking the guy when the election is underway.  It's too late to replace him even if there was someone who'd do better.  And no one would.

nicky

Ken, you keep maintaining, without any evidence, that no other leader would do better than the monumentally unpopular and reviled Jeremy Corbyn.

Even DONALD Trump would do better since his approval rating is higher than Corbyns in the UK

http://www.pollingdigest.com/home/2017/3/27/corbyns-trumpian-approval-ra...

Rev Pesky

Of course Trump doesn't have the PLP ranting on constantly about how seriously bad a leader he is.

nicky

You're right Rev. Unlike 80% of Labour MPs, very few Republicans are willing to go public with their demonstrably objective beliefs that their leader is an utter disaster.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

The leadership re-vote put the PLP no-confidence motion to rest.  There was no justification in the PLP STILL fighting to force Corbyn out.

​If they'd just agreed that there WOULD be a left candidate in the next leadership ballot, the man would have gone.

You can't seriously argue that it was a legitimate thing for the PLP to try to force Corbyn out and then limit the candidates on the leadership ballot to replace him to only anti-Corbynites(i.e., right-wingers).

And you can't seriously defend the continued anti-Corbyn plotting of the PLP DURING the election campaign, when it's too late to change leaders before polling day and when no leader the PLP could impose in Corbyn's place even if it wasn't too late could possibly deserve the support of the majority of the party that still agrees with Corbyn on the issues.

It's time to end this, Nicky.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

nicky wrote:

Ken, you keep maintaining, without any evidence, that no other leader would do better than the monumentally unpopular and reviled Jeremy Corbyn.

Even DONALD Trump would do better since his approval rating is higher than Corbyns in the UK

http://www.pollingdigest.com/home/2017/3/27/corbyns-trumpian-approval-ra...

 

 

There has never been any polling done, in the whole time Corbyn has been leader, showing that the party's vote share would rise at all if anyone else was in the leadership...and certainly not if the PLP imposed anyone sharply to Corbyn's right(which they would be doing if they limited people on the leadership ballot to anti-Corbynite right-wingers like Yvette Cooper or Chuka Umunna).  What right would such a figure have to ask any Corbyn supporter(even allowing for the fact that Corbyn, in that scenario, would support such a figure out of his loyalty to the party)for their support, when the people who imposed that new leader have spent two unrelenting years undermining the leader that was twice elected by a landslide margin?  What right would that leader have to demand loyalty when her or his rise to the leadership was the product of conspiracy and disloyalty?

This matters desperately, since if 250,000 people instantly stop working for the Labour campaign, NO ONE AT ALL would come in from anywhere else on the spectrum to replace them.

Do you not see the problem there?

There is no possible anti-Corbyn Labour leader who has any personal popularity, speaks with any passion or could possibly shape a message in the two and a half weeks left in the campaign that anyone anywhere in the UK could support.  And you know it.

​Even Dan "I was a paratrooper" Jarvis.

Rev Pesky

From nicky:

You're right Rev. Unlike 80% of Labour MPs, very few Republicans are willing to go public with their demonstrably objective beliefs that their leader is an utter disaster.

And you know what? When the PLP decides to start fighting against the right-wing Conservative party, instead of the left-wing Labour party, prospects for Labour will increase dramatically.

Unfortunately that's unlikely to happen because the PLP is right-wing to the core, and can't stand the thought of a left-winger at the head of the Labour Party. I guess, like you, and others, they've forgotten the Labour Party was a left-wing party back in the day. Oh well.

Aristotleded24

nicky wrote:
You're right Rev. Unlike 80% of Labour MPs, very few Republicans are willing to go public with their demonstrably objective beliefs that their leader is an utter disaster.

What is so special about the opinions of elected members of a legislative assembly that they should count more than the rank-and-file members?

Oh, I forgot, elected members always know what they were talking about. I remember the federal NDP went against the wishes of Caucus and voted for Jack Layton. What a disaster that was for the party. The bulk of the federal Caucus then supported Mulcair during his leadership run, and we were are all happy that Mulcair is the first NDP Prime Minister this country has ever elected. Even here in Manitoba, when there was an uprising against Greg Selinger, the Caucus supported him, with the result that Greg Selinger is still our Premier and we don't have to worry about Pallister doing things like undoing the tuition freeze or not raising the minimum wage.

Oh...

nicky

To respond to a few of your recent comments,:

Yes Aristotle, I think Manitoba is a case in point. As I recall Selinger lost a majority of his caucus although he maintained a plurality. He should have recognized with even half of his caucus in rebellion he could not continue to lead and that the responsible thing would have been to step down. His refusal resulted in electoral disaster for the party.

Corbyn has been deserted by 80% or more of his caucus, a figure much greater than the Selinger revolt. Any responsible leader in those circumstances would have put his party first and set down.

That Corbyn did not do this demonatrates how little regard he has for the electoral wellbeing of his party. He and his supporters would rather control a small unelectable sect, content to wallow in their self-righteous puritanism rather than let Labour win with a responsible platform that would actually help its voters.

As I have said before, I do not see anything wrong with leadership candidates having to secure a certain threshold of MPs. Corbyn was able to do so when he first ran for the leadership.

There was of course almost immediate buyer's remorse when he won. He had only 14 MPs in his camp and had to get 35 to be nominated. He got over the line because a number of MPs who had no wish to see him elected gave him a complimentary nomination to see that the left had a candidate.

It is worth noting that most of this 35 vote no confidence in him given his abysmal performance as leader in his first year. This included several of his orignial 14 supporters.

Given the dsiaster that Corbyn is visiting upon the Labour party I would hope that the PLP in the future has learned its lesson and refuses ever again to nominate anyone of his ilk. The "veto" is essential in my view to preserve the very existence of the Labour party as a legitimate contender for power.

If for example a fringe lunatic like Barry Wiesleder was about to take over the NDP (and Weisleder may be the closest thing the NDP has to a Corbyn) then I would hope that the elders and the dreaded "establishmnet" of my party would do what they could to save the party from the applaing prospect of his leadership. The Corbyn example would be all the justification they need.

At the moment Labour is running at about 24%. As dismal as that is Corbyn approval rating is much lower, perhaps in the mid-teens, significant eveidenc that he is a major drag on the party's prospects.

One mechanism that Labour is using in this campaign to staunch the bleeding is to assure its voters that Corbyn is just too ridiculous ever to be PM. Therefore voters can safely vote for their local Labour MPs without fear of giving him the keys to #10.

And if you disagree with any of the above, just have a look with the polls published this weekend.

cco

So MPs should have their nomination automatically confirmed (to protect them from the party's pesky "membership"), and should also have a veto over who can run for leader (for the same reason). And to think, there have been days when I felt like the NDP's higher-ups thought the party's members were an uppity albatross around their necks who don't understand that their role is to donate, vote, and shut up. The PLP's utter contempt for its own members makes the NDP look grassroots-focused. Why don't those PLP MPs who oppose Corbyn simply agree that this time they'll run for Theresa May, giving the membership the chance to select Labour candidates instead of Red Tories, and the PLP the chance to see whether their conservatism-with-a-human-face strategy is really what the electorate's looking for?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

nicky wrote:

If for example a fringe lunatic like Barry Wiesleder was about to take over the NDP (and Weisleder may be the closest thing the NDP has to a Corbyn) then I would hope that the elders and the dreaded "establishmnet" of my party would do what they could to save the party from the applaing prospect of his leadership. The Corbyn example would be all the justification they need.

Svend Robinson, Bill Siskay and Dave Barrett all shared most of the same views as Corbyn.  Maybe the problem is your Ontario NDP focus and maybe that focus is why the NDP is always doomed in Ontario because no one outside of political junkies can tell them apart from the Liberals, you know like Mulcair's great campaign.

Lets see on one side we have Barry a person who has never been elected to any legislature and can't even get elected to the Executive of the NDP.  On the other hand we have Jeremy who was first elected as an MP in 1983, 34 years ago and then elected by the membership to lead the Labour party. You have really jumped the shark with that comparison.

 

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Nicky, why can't you at least accept that it wasn't reasonable to expect Corbyn to stand down without getting a guarantee that somebody at least close to his views would be on the leadership ballot to replace him?  MOST of the rank-and-file of the party agrees with Corbyn on the issues.  MOST of the views he holds(with the possible exception of his stance on the Bomb-some Brits have a pointless attachment to that instrument of omnicide, a weapon whose use can never be moral in any possible diplomatic or military situation).  Why SHOULD Corbyn have stood down and forced the majority of the party who agree with him to vote for his successor in a ballot on which no one outside of the far right of the party would have been allowed?

​You'd have to concede, I think, that it's impossible for a Dan Jarvis or a Chuka Umunna or an Yvette Cooper to say anything geuinely Labour.

If the party goes down to a bad defeat, it's on the right-wing, the people who refused to accept that the second leadership ballot put the leadership question to rest, who refused to stop working for the destruction of the most decent human being that has ever led the party.  They weren't going to settle for anything but the return of sectarian Blairism(a set of policies NO ONE wants back, since those policies can do nothing to help anyone) and they don't believe in democracy.   They think THEY are the party and no one else is.  And they think there's no reason to have a Labour government other than to slaughter Arabs and Muslims from the skies.

nicky

It is so facile to blame everything on the Blairites, as if that gives Corbyn a pass on the drubbing that Labour looks to get under his leadership. Blair, whatever his faults, never got less than 35% and always held the Labour base. Corbyn looks to get nmaybe 12% less than that because huge portions of the Labour base can't stomach him.

None of you have explained why Corbyn's approval rating is way below that of the party. Seems quite anamalous if he is as wonderful as some of you think.

And yes I think the party rules are justified if they can save the party o from future agony such as what Corbyn is inflicting on it now.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

His approval rating is below the party's because the MPs of the party have spent two years continuously attacking him and spreading lies about him(such as the despicable claim that Corbyn "supports hatred of Jews".

Nicky, will you at least accept that it's too late to replace Corbyn before the election and that no greater good can still be served by anyone within the party continuing to attack him?

​The fact is that, after Major's disaster with the Exchange Rate Mechanism in '93, a Labour victory in '96 or '97 was a certainty.  The party never needed a leader that spent more time attacking socialism than Toryism, that made his pitch the electorate an apology for Labour EVER having opposed Thatcherism.  No one who thought Thatcher was right to smash the unions and slash services had any non-Tory views.

josh

nicky wrote:

It is so facile to blame everything on the Blairites, as if that gives Corbyn a pass on the drubbing that Labour looks to get under his leadership. Blair, whatever his faults, never got less than 35% and always held the Labour base. Corbyn looks to get nmaybe 12% less than that because huge portions of the Labour base can't stomach him.

None of you have explained why Corbyn's approval rating is way below that of the party. Seems quite anamalous if he is as wonderful as some of you think.

And yes I think the party rules are justified if they can save the party o from future agony such as what Corbyn is inflicting on it now.

You think Labour is only going to get 23%?  We'll see.

Corbyn is not "inflicting" anything.  The ones doing the inflicting are the ones actively undermining him and the process that resulted in him winnng two contests.  

Pages