Corbyn offers to do a televised debate with Cameron

[Joe-b-1 10]

To running man and obelix.

Given your argument then you must also believe that the initial claims, accusation or suggestion call it what you will by Berberis in post 33 are also invalid.

 

"Both the Guardian and Mirror news papers are openly biased in favour of Labour. Both are the left wing equivalents of the Telegraph and Daily Mail." and "The BBC admitted to left wing bias a while back but not anti-corbyn bias." Or is supposition allowed one way but not the other.

[Obelix 11]

No because both the Guardian and Mirror self identify as being Labour leaning/left wing papers.

[foxy lady 10]

Corbyn's message is distorted at best, and generally, deliberately trashed by the media.

 

The only way he can get his message across is to do it in person, so there is no room for spin and bias. That's why he spends a lot of time speaking directly to people up and down the country and at meetings. Most people like what they see and hear. It reminds me of the saying 'they came to jeer but stayed to cheer.'

 

That's why politicians of both parties see him as very dangerous.

 

That's hilarious. He speaks to meetings because that is what brings out the rabble. Moderates turn off the telly and certainly don't go to political rallies.It is how he got elected as party leader but doesn't connect with the electorate, because moderate voters aren't members of the Labour Party, although some clearly think that they represent public opinion.

[Joe-b-1 10]

No because both the Guardian and Mirror self identify as being Labour leaning/left wing papers.

 

Can you provide evidence of where the editors of either paper have stated this?

[999tigger 10]

Corbyn's message is distorted at best, and generally, deliberately trashed by the media.

 

The only way he can get his message across is to do it in person, so there is no room for spin and bias. That's why he spends a lot of time speaking directly to people up and down the country and at meetings. Most people like what they see and hear. It reminds me of the saying 'they came to jeer but stayed to cheer.'

 

That's why politicians of both parties see him as very dangerous.

 

If they see him as dangerous its for reasons very different to the ones you imagine. Most people like what they see and hear is a bit pointless if hes preaching to the converted.

 

To win an election and the majority then you have to win the middle ground. He can applea to his left wing supporters, but not much more.

 

More taxes or and borrowing.

Weak defence policy, he's made it a weak point.

Not trusted with the economy.

In thrall to the unions.

Not an oustanding political speaker/leader.

Not in control of his party.

 

Its not all bad, but he wont win.

[Obelix 11]

Can you provide evidence of where the editors of either paper have stated this?

 

You are perfectly capable of doing your own research

[foxy lady 10]

You have any evidence for this? Have to say I disagree. Theres no point him wasting his energy if he doesnt want to try for power. A leader might be powerful, but they arent unstoppable. He might want to push some of his key values, but he's going to get a big shock when he's rejected.

 

It was very much hinted at in an article in the Guardian a couple of days ago. They commented that Corbyn showed little interest in working towards electoral victory....

 

"Corbyn’s first three months leave the impression that he does not even see winning an election as his primary task, let alone developing a gameplan that could achieve it. His most enthusiastic announcements have focused on process, not ideas: he wants to give Labour’s recently swelled ranks of members – further to the left of the country than ever before – greater control over party policy. Corbyn has taken over at the helm of a political party – and he is busy transforming it into a social movement. Usually the process works in reverse.

 

Corbyn’s own beliefs – on the role of the state, the economy, international relations, the nature of work – feel as though they have barely been modified since the 1970s"

 

I do get the impression that Corbyn feels winning an election with the current Labour Party would be an election defeat for the left. His priority being to move away from the Blair years in power, and destroy every trace of it. So far he hasn't laid a glove on the Tories. Instead he has attacked his own MPs.

Edited December 29, 2015 by foxy lady

[Joe-b-1 10]

You are perfectly capable of doing your own research

 

So are you. I admit that I can't find any evidence to back up your claim.

Edited December 29, 2015 by Joe-b-1

[banjodeano 31]

Someone who used to work for the BBC saying they believe the BBC is bias is not the same thing as the BBC admitting bias.

Try again or retract your claim.

dont talk such tosh, it stands as a credible claim, along with the other 50,000 who put in writing that they thought the BBC were bias....

 

 

That's hilarious. He speaks to meetings because that is what brings out the rabble. Moderates turn off the telly and certainly don't go to political rallies.It is how he got elected as party leader but doesn't connect with the electorate, because moderate voters aren't members of the Labour Party, although some clearly think that they represent public opinion.

 

that will be why he increased the labour majority at the last by election in Oldham

[999tigger 10]

It was very much hinted at in an article in the Guardian a couple of days ago. They commented that Corbyn showed little interest in working towards electoral victory....

 

"Corbyn’s first three months leave the impression that he does not even see winning an election as his primary task, let alone developing a gameplan that could achieve it. His most enthusiastic announcements have focused on process, not ideas: he wants to give Labour’s recently swelled ranks of members – further to the left of the country than ever before – greater control over party policy. Corbyn has taken over at the helm of a political party – and he is busy transforming it into a social movement. Usually the process works in reverse.

 

Corbyn’s own beliefs – on the role of the state, the economy, international relations, the nature of work – feel as though they have barely been modified since the 1970s"

 

He's an unknown thoughand the whole leadership thing is new to him. Theres another fifty months till any election, so I wouldnt make a big deal of what he has or has not done after three. It will take him at least a year to find his feet and another to start thinking about what message he will wnat to sell to the public. All that article talks about a 3 month impression, different people approach tasks differently. We dont know if hes busy writing up his policies now or they are left for the last 24 months.

[foxy lady 10]

He's an unknown thoughand the whole leadership thing is new to him. Theres another fifty months till any election, so I wouldnt make a big deal of what he has or has not done after three. It will take him at least a year to find his feet and another to start thinking about what message he will wnat to sell to the public. All that article talks about a 3 month impression, different people approach tasks differently. We dont know if hes busy writing up his policies now or they are left for the last 24 months.

 

Oh indeed, but then if in January he starts to purge the shadow cabinet of the high achievers, replacing them with folk based on their left wing credentials rather than ability, the process will be well and truly underway. You read it here first.

[999tigger 10]

 

that will be why he increased the labour majority at the last by election in Oldham

 

He didnt increase the majority, they got just under 6500 fewer votes, but even so as fewer people voted that amounted to an increase in the share of the vote. they actually won becayse they had a strong local candidate, who admitted on the night that they had avoided using Corbyn as an issue.