hypochondriac

No one said we shouldn't pay for their travel but as I said, travel costs have doubled whilst state visit costs have stayed the same since meghan and Harry got married.

Also just heard that one trip to Fiji cost the tax payer 81k last year and travel costs have apparently doubled for the entire Royal family since meghan married Harry but state visit costs have remained the same which suggests we are all paying for their holidays.

Here's a good article which sums up my thoughts well: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2020/01/prince-harry-meghan-markle-hypocrisy-royals/604714/

I don't agree but let's say for the sake of argument that you're correct so we can discount the climate change lectures as a reason for people being annoyed. Do you disagree with the rest of my analysis?

Multiple private jet flights on a number of holidays isn't really the same thing is it.

I meant the content of his speech. It was well received because he was telling a room of woke celebrities that people don't like being preached to.

That was one thing I highlighted when there's a whole catalogue of things which when taken together make it quite understandable why public sentiment has largely turned against them. People don't like being preached to by woke celebrities (see the recent Ricky Gervais golden globes speech for example) and they particularly don't like climate change lectures when they are frequently jetting round the globe on private jets and when they are taking huge amounts of money from tax payers. The Queen understands the need to keep the public onside because without them their positions would cease to exist.

It just means Britain first members are largely thick idiots. I think it's a silly idea but if you want to judge leaders by the dodgy supporters they attract then it's not like Corbyn is short in that respect. Nick Griffin is one high profile supporter for example.

Of course that's why he has one in his cabinet.

Maybe but it's not like they haven't been worthy of criticism without any of that stuff, going through staff at a rate of knots, opening themselves up to claims of hypocrisy over climate lecturing, new age lectures about gender neutral child rearing, millions of pounds of taxpayer money spent on refurbishing their property and the pretty poor way she treated her father over the wedding along with moaning about their lifestyle with an African backdrop. Yes the mail and the like have been typically sensationalist but its not like there's been a shortage of negative pr. Oh and the rumoured plan to monetise their titles is pretty vulgar if true so the royals wouldn't be too wrong in that respect.

If you don't think he lost the election due to media bias then why did you challenge my belief that neutral media coverage would still have meant he lost the election? Like I said, media coverage did not affect the outcome. Why are you still banging on about Corbyn? I entered this discussion when you said started talking about the media being against corbyn and that may be why he lost the election. You seem a bit obsessed with Boris and no need to have a rerun of the election.

I think my Grandad knew him, I'll pass on the details cheers.

My point is that facts about Corbyn are objectionable on their own with no media spin required. He's not the type of character that people want as Prime Minister and he's done various things that people don't like. Labour have themselves to blame for this election result not some evil media campaign brainwashing the sheeple. And if Corbyn has a negative assosciation with Russia then he only has himself to blame for that too considering his Salisbury statement (and yes I am aware of precisely what he did and didn't say in that circumstance, the impression it gave and the timeline involved.)

I see it suits your narrative to try to change the conversation. I am happy to believe that reddit have an experienced moderation team who have many years experience of this sort of "content manipulation" as they put it but I accept that some Corbynistas will believe that the right wing moderators made it up as yet another facet of their campaign against Corbyn so as I said, feel free to use IRA or refer to the many other objectionable things about Corbyn, the point remains the same.

And not that it matters, but it wasn't a single person on reddit, it was a statement released on behalf of the moderation team who spoke about the systems they have in place that have been developed over a number of years to identify and catch coordinated behaviour.

Corbyn has a history of meetings and sharing platforms with characters who largely despise the UK and at best have some very dodgy views- FACT Corbyn was a largely uninspiring speaker, did not look Prime Ministerial and did not appear to be particularly patriotic- FACT Corbyn was criticised by many Jewish Labour members and MPs for the way he handled anti-semitism allegations. The party have handled this so poorly that the Human Rights commission has felt it necessary to open an investigation into them- FACT I could go on but the point is that these things on their own are more than enough for people to form a negative opinion- warranted or not- of the man and not want him as Prime Minister, no negative media portrayals required.

Why are you getting into the minutiae of Corbyn and the many varied facets of his character and his actions that mean people find him unpopular? Why you feel the desire to rerun the election campaign I have no idea. Your claim was that Corbyn lost the election because of right wing media bias influencing the public. My claim was that even if the media had been entirely neutral, there are enough negatives about Corbyn and his associations which mean that people would be much more uneasy about voting for him than Johnson. I'm very confident that is the case but I accept it's impossible to prove definitively.

Whatabboutery again that has nothing to do with claims that right wing media bias against Corbyn prevented him from winning the election. As I said, feel free to use IRA links instead, the point that you've missed is that presented with this facts, many of the British public would feel uneasy about voting for Corbyn as leader of the country even if they were presented in a simply factual manner.

The fact he used hacked NHS documents from Russians for his election campaign. I do accept that's a claim he denies though so I'm happy for you to exclude Russian links if you want and replace it with IRA. Regardless do you disagree with the rest of it?

Corbyn handled anti semitism investigations horrendously. That would still have been the case whatever the press reported. Senior Jewish Labour figures would still have been heavily critical of him personally, the human rights commission would still have been investigating Labour. Corbyn would still have been viewed negatively by the public for his associations with various terrorist organisations and many within the electorate would still have been suspicious that he actually had a very low opinion of the UK and did a lot of consortobg with the wrong sort of people. Most of the public would have come to these conclusions even if they had been presented in an entirely factual manner and you even said yourself he couldn't even pretend to be patriotic so even if the press had just released video footage of him looking scruffy, not singing and his negative views of the monarchy etc they would have come to those conclusions anyway.

All press bias has an impact. I think it suits certain agendas to over inflate the influence of the press and pretend that there's some giant right wing conspiracy to brainwash people into not voting for Corbyn. It's a nonsense but it allows people to not face up to the truth which is that corbyn was and is an appaling leader of a mainstream political party. At least Starmer looks vaguely like he could be prime minister, but some people within Labour would rather keep corbyn even now then try someone who has a whiff of being less extreme even if it increases their chances of winning an election. No amount of positive press coverage in the world could have redeemed corbyn and some of his actions.

Well in that case I couldn't disagree more strongly. I don't consider the majority of the public to be mindless robots. There has always been a lot to dislike about Corbyn including some of the people who follow him. The press didn't exactly have to try hard to be critical of his Iran and Russia links, his wreath laying exploits, his statements after Salisbury, his slowness to react on antisemitism, his candidness about never using the nuclear deterrent etc. The British public didn't need the fading British press to tell them that they didn't want corbyn in charge of the country.

You can have a difference of opinion but to suggest the BBC is right leaning or that the guardian doesn't have a left bias is pretty mental. I have left wing labour supporting mates who would consider that view pretty crazy.

In a hypothetical scenario where all printed press was strictly factual, I still think that corbyn would have left a bad taste in many people's mouths and he would have still lost the election. Agree?

So the BBC are biased to the right and the Guardian are unbiased? Are you insane?