All things Labour Party

Edit

Criticise Phillips for her repellant views by all means. But once you start likening a Jewish woman to, quote, 'actual Nazis', you're using an anti-Semitic slur.

 

That is, unless you can show that she advocates what 'actual Nazis' did - throwing 15,000 gay people into death camps and kill up to 15,000 of them.

Accusing me of an antisemitic slur is exact same boll*cks you do to others who criticise anyone who happens to be right of centre and Jewish.

As it happens I didn't know she was Jewish. She could be Hindu or Atheist but my comment still stands.

She is the exact sort if person who would've turned a blind eye to Nazi policies against gay and disabled people in the build up to and during WW2. Just my opinion of course.

I suppose if somebody has little stake in society and pay no tax, the thought of JC can be a positive, in fact very appealing as they may well get more, but if you are a taxpayer and have strived and worked for decades to make a decent life, at the same time paying into the system shedloads the thought of him and the dark forces hidden behind him, I suggest it is a terrifying thought.

IMO it will be a disaster that this country would not recover from in your lifetime, but I suppose for a lot of people who just want to draw out of society but put nothing back in they don't care. There is no really fair system, but having a society where nobody thrives is not worth having. The party and supporters of envy add nothing to this country, and when they take over, the downtrodden will still be downtrodden but just different people feeding from the trough at the top, history shows that

I feel sorry for you ScaredOldMan, you believe nothing can change for the better. 200 years ago you would've been telling everyone not to vote for a 5 day working week and Bank holidays as it would cause the destruction of society. Only our corporate overlords know what's best and nothing can be done about it.

Have Labour won yet?

I dontknow I haven't read them. I ve never heard of him

Former chief economist at Goldman Sachs, treasury minister under the conservatives and current chair of chatham house. So a straight and narrow establishment figure.

https://www.ft.com/content/bc14ef02-bc05-11e8-8dfd-2f1cbc7ee27c

I see another critic of Jezza within Labour has been given a vote of no confidence. Gotta love his version of Socialism.

I feel sorry for you ScaredOldMan, you believe nothing can change for the better. 200 years ago you would've been telling everyone not to vote for a 5 day working week and Bank holidays as it would cause the destruction of society. Only our corporate overlords know what's best and nothing can be done about it.

tell me how many days a week you work, and how many hours? One thing Im not scared of is work.

That’s not really the point, is it?

That’s not really the point, is it?

I left school at 16 and apart from the first few weeks where I got £4 a week I have used my own mind to get by and build something. So why should I get penalised more for actually putting a lot back into society?

it is to me. If someone who is sitting on its arse and preaching to me that I should work more hours a week than the majority of people, so to pay more tax so that they have more beer money then it is the point. For the lazy JC is a lovely prospect as they are going to get more for nothing.

I left school at 16 and apart from the first few weeks where I got £4 a week I have used my own mind to get by and build something. So why should I get penalised more for actually putting a lot back into society?

His point is that many things dismissed as crazy and dangerous in the past are today considered normal and hallmarks of a civilised society.

it is to me. If someone who is sitting on its arse and preaching to me that I should work more hours a week than the majority of people, so to pay more tax so that they have more beer money then it is the point. For the lazy JC is a lovely prospect as they are going to get more for nothing.

I left school at 16 and apart from the first few weeks where I got £4 a week I have used my own mind to get by and build something. So why should I get penalised more for actually putting a lot back into society?

Who is doing that?

His point is that many things dismissed as crazy and dangerous in the past are today considered normal and hallmarks of a civilised society.

I pay considerable amount into the coffers so that the weak , old and unable are looked after. That is why I happily do it, but the crew that he is advocating that he says Im scared of, want to take more from me, and seems not to understand or care that is unfair.

His point was also I was scared of it, when Im concerned that I have to work harder and get less, just to appease or make life easier for those who just want to do nothing and hold their hands out.

I pay considerable amount into the coffers so that the weak , old and unable are looked after. That is why I happily do it, but the crew that he is advocating that he says Im scared of, want to take more from me, and seems not to understand or care that is unfair.

You think the majority of the poor don't work hard either?

#clueless

#mess

 

#mess

If Jezza did that, instant sticky labour underwear. #mess

You think the majority of the poor don't work hard either?

 

#clueless

Where did he mention the poor? I read it as the feckless. Do try and concentrate harder.

Where did he mention the poor? I read it as the feckless. Do try and concentrate harder.

Shylock is wrong about most things (damn his people) but he's right about this.

Where did he mention the poor? I read it as the feckless. Do try and concentrate harder.

Do keep up Les - admittedly you're a bit rusty given your time away. Nick is against Corbyn's economic agenda which is fundamentally redistributionary -redistributing income/wealth from the rich to the poor. So who else is Nick referring to when he talks about the feckless?

If Jezza did that, instant sticky labour underwear. #mess

 

#mess

Has she been prescribed something iffy?

Maybe we are trying to show Fritz that she's mental. You can't negotiate with a mentalist.

Do keep up Les - admittedly you're a bit rusty given your time away. Nick is against Corbyn's economic agenda which is fundamentally redistributionary -redistributing income/wealth from the rich to the poor. So who else is Nick referring to when he talks about the feckless?

I asked you where he mentioned the poor. You can't answer it, apart from waffling on about what you think he meant to say - in your opinion.

Likewise, I doubt that even the hapless and gormless Corbyn has a policy to redistribute income/wealth from the rich to the feckless, does he? That might appeal to the feckless voter, but nobody else.

By the way, just something that I am curious about; why is it that you have to edit virtually every post you make?

There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.

I asked you where he mentioned the poor. You can't answer it, apart from waffling on about what you think he meant to say - in your opinion.

 

Likewise, I doubt that even the hapless and gormless Corbyn has a policy to redistribute income/wealth from the rich to the feckless, does he? That might appeal to the feckless voter, but nobody else.

By the way, just something that I am curious about; why is it that you have to edit virtually every post you make?

Still not answered my question. Do you think redistribution will go to those who "just want to do nothing and hold their hands out". You do know what redistribution is and who it benefits?

Keep running around in circles.

I edit because my mobile has a tiny screen, so cannot always see my posts and typos. I also type on the go and have lost posts when leaving multiple browser windows open, so find it easier to reply (save) first, revise later.

The problem with "redistributing" the wealth from the rich to the poor, is the rich will find unique ways to disguise the income they receive and you won't end up any better off. I'd love for his "ideas" to work, but they just won't. Society is a mess.

Still not answered my question. Do you think redistribution will go to those who "just want to do nothing and hold their hands out". You do know what redistribution is and who it benefits?

 

Keep running around in circles.

 

I edit because my mobile has a tiny screen, so cannot always see my posts and typos. I also type on the go and have lost posts when leaving multiple browser windows open, so find it easier to reply (save) first, revise later.

It's you running around in circles. You still haven't managed to point out where Nick mentioned the poor rather than the feckless. You do know the difference between poor and feckless, don't you? I'm quite prepared to make donations to charities supporting the poor, but like Nick, I wouldn't wish to donate my hard earned dosh to the feckless.

Why don't you buy a mobile with a bigger screen? Or get your eyesight checked.

You think the majority of the poor don't work hard either?

 

#clueless

It's you running around in circles. You still haven't managed to point out where Nick mentioned the poor rather than the feckless. You do know the difference between poor and feckless, don't you? I'm quite prepared to make donations to charities supporting the poor, but like Nick, I wouldn't wish to donate my hard earned dosh to the feckless.

 

Why don't you buy a mobile with a bigger screen? Or get your eyesight checked.

Once again, you've failed to explain how and why redistribution ends up in the hands of those who want to do nothing. Its blindingly obvious that redistribution goes to the poor but why should it go to the feckless as Nick contends? There is no link - unless you think large numbers of the poor are also feckless.

Its great having you back pal.

I didnt mention the poor, many people on low paid jobs work very hard, I didnt mean to imply that and so if I have insulted anyone I didnt intend to. I am an advocate that the low paid should be totally free of tax as it must be galling that they know they work while others sit on their behinds and get nearly as much for doing nothing. I was pointing at the workshy of course, I suspect you knew that and surprised that you hadn't clocked it.

I knew what you meant and I suspect that most others did too. Shurlock probably did too, but you know how he likes deliberately to twist things. Either that, or his comprehension skills are poor.

I didnt mention the poor, many people on low paid jobs work very hard, I didnt mean to imply that and so if I have insulted anyone I didnt intend to. I am an advocate that the low paid should be totally free of tax as it must be galling that they know they work while others sit on their behinds and get nearly as much for doing nothing. I was pointing at the workshy of course, I suspect you knew that and surprised that you hadn't clocked it.

Well your post was poorly constructed then.

It's reasonable to have concerns about potential benefit abuse but that doesn't explain the tone of your post. If your concern is about a few bad apples, then surely you wouldn't attack Corbyn's policies in blanket terms -as you did- and consequently throw the policy baby out with the bathwater. Rather you would accept the policy and deal with abuse on a case by case basis. To the extent you didn't, its hard to avoid the impression that you think fecklessness and idle poor are much bigger problems. As I said that's demonstrably false.

I don’t get all the hatred for the workshy, sure it’s irritating that some people don’t pull their weight but I just pity them, it seems like a right sh!tty existence to me.

Those who are comparatively well off who get really angry at them just come across as people who hate their jobs. All they have to look forward to is their pay cheque at the end of the month so their blood boils when the see the money out in the tax column.

Most benefits get paid to people who need them and any one of us might need to fall back on them one day, I doubt there are that many on the take. Not enough to effect my life, certainly not enough to get angry about or vote for a party who makes life harder for most vulnerable.

I edit because my mobile has a tiny screen, so cannot always see my posts and typos.

Sounds like someone is looking for a handout.

#HandsOffNicksMillions

I don’t get all the hatred for the workshy, sure it’s irritating that some people don’t pull their weight but I just pity them, it seems like a right sh!tty existence to me.

 

Those who are comparatively well off who get really angry at them just come across as people who hate their jobs. All they have to look forward to is their pay cheque at the end of the month so their blood boils when the see the money out in the tax column.

 

Most benefits get paid to people who need them and any one of us might need to fall back on them one day, I doubt there are that many on the take. Not enough to effect my life, certainly not enough to get angry about or vote for a party who makes life harder for most vulnerable.

Agreed. Benefit fraud only accounts for a very tiny fraction of the government's budget, and a life on benefits is no life at all. There may be some people who have no intention of ever working and are happy to live of meagre handouts, but they represent a very tiny minority and the cost of their benefits to the taxpayer is insignificant in real terms, and is dwarfed by the cost to the treasury of corporate tax avoidance. The vast majority of benefits are paid to people already in work.

But there is certainly a stereotype about 'benefit scroungers'. I know they exist because I knew a few in my younger days, but Oldnick appears to have fallen foul of the belief that these people make up the majority of Labour supporters. He couldn't be more wrong. The kind of people you associate with this demographic are far more likely to vote UKIP in my experience.

Sounds like someone is looking for a handout.

#HandsOffNicksMillions

Failing that, I'll set up a go fund me page for Les as he seems quite concerned about my welfare.

Agreed.

 

but Oldnick appears to have fallen foul of the belief that these people make up the majority of Labour supporters.

Where did Nick suggest that these people make up the majority of Labour supporters? A proportion, no doubt, but I saw no suggestion that they formed a majority of the Party.

May saying end of Austerity seems a pretty big deal. Never voted Tory in my life but this seems v positive and hopefully they have woken up.

Weird CH4 news doesn’t have it as first or second story yet

Where did Nick suggest that these people make up the majority of Labour supporters? A proportion, no doubt, but I saw no suggestion that they formed a majority of the Party.

OK, fair point - he made no direct reference to it being a majority. But the overall tone of his post seemed to imply that the only people who would be happy to see a Labour government are people who expect something for nothing. I can assure you and OldNick this is not the case.

And as I alluded to in my previous post, my own personal experience of the kind of people he was referring to is that they also tend towards the sort of right-wing, patriotic, anti-immigration rhetoric you would normally associate with UKIP or the BNP.

If you were to go door-knocking round the high-rise towers of Millbrook and Weston on a weekday afternoon to ask people about their political opinions, I very much doubt you would find a lot of support for the current Labour party.

Well, well, isn't this interesting...

http://www.mediareform.org.uk/blog/new-mrc-research-finds-inaccuracies-and-distortions-in-media-coverage-of-antisemitism-and-the-labour-party

The Media Reform Coalition has conducted in-depth research on the controversy surrounding antisemitism in the Labour Party, focusing on media coverage of the crisis during the summer of 2018. Following extensive case study research, we identified myriad inaccuracies and distortions in online and television news including marked skews in sourcing, omission of essential context or right of reply, misquotation, and false assertions made either by journalists themselves or sources whose contentious claims were neither challenged nor countered. Overall, our findings were consistent with a disinformation paradigm...

 

...Overall, we found 95 clear cut examples of misleading or inaccurate reporting on mainstream television and online news platforms, with a quarter of the total sample containing at least one such example. The problem was especially pronounced on television – which reaches far wider audiences by comparison – where two thirds of the news segments on television contained at least one reporting error or substantive distortion.

 

Underlying these figures was a persistent subversion of conventional news values:

 

* Several reports focused on a controversial social media post by Jeremy Corbyn omitted any mention that it was made six years ago, with some emphasising a sense of currency and recency that failed to make clear the historical context of the post.

 

* Journalists covering the launch of Labour’s antisemitism report in 2016 routinely misquoted an activist in ways that were entirely removed from his original comment, in spite of a video recording of the event that was readily and immediately accessible.

 

* Above all, coverage of Labour’s revised code of conduct during the summer of 2018 often entirely omitted critical discussion of the ‘working definition’ of antisemitism put forward by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), and wrongly characterized it as consensual and universally adopted.

In fact, we established through background case research that

 

* Although the IHRA is an international body with representatives from 31 countries, only six of those countries have, to date, formally adopted the definition themselves.

 

* In spite of a call for local authorities to adopt the definition by the UK’s central government in early 2017, Less than a third of councils have responded and several of those have chosen not to include any of the controversial examples contained within the working definition.

 

* Several high-profile bodies have rejected or distanced themselves from the working definition, including the EU’s Fundamental Rights Agency (a successor to the body that drafted the original wording on which the definition is based) and academic institutions including the London School of Economics and School of Oriental and African Studies.

 

* Mainstream academic and legal opinion has been overwhelmingly critical of the IHRA definition, including formal opinions produced by four leading UK barristers.

 

Virtually none of this essential context found its way into news reports of the controversy. Instead, the Labour Party was routinely portrayed by both sources and correspondents as beyond the pale of conventional thinking on the IHRA definition.

So a comprehensive study into the media reporting of the antisemitism 'crisis' in Labour has shown beyond doubt what those of us with an objective viewpoint could see quite clearly all along: that Corbyn has been the target of a relentless disinformation campaign by the corporate media and the BBC.

Who would have thought it eh?

May saying end of Austerity seems a pretty big deal. Never voted Tory in my life but this seems v positive and hopefully they have woken up.

Weird CH4 news doesn’t have it as first or second story yet

Its not what you announce that counts. Its what you do. May has signally failed to deliver on all her major promises.

Well, well, isn't this interesting...

 

http://www.mediareform.org.uk/blog/new-mrc-research-finds-inaccuracies-and-distortions-in-media-coverage-of-antisemitism-and-the-labour-party

 

 

 

So a comprehensive study into the media reporting of the antisemitism 'crisis' in Labour has shown beyond doubt what those of us with an objective viewpoint could see quite clearly all along: that Corbyn has been the target of a relentless disinformation campaign by the corporate media and the BBC.

 

Who would have thought it eh?

Who would have thought that the Corbynist Justin Schlosberg would have written a report defending Corbyn. I'm shocked.

Its not what you announce that counts. Its what you do. May has signally failed to deliver on all her major promises.

Of course. But must admit there is something about her i prefer than the other Tories. It may just be the underdog thing and a cracking trouser suit.

Well, well, isn't this interesting...

 

http://www.mediareform.org.uk/blog/new-mrc-research-finds-inaccuracies-and-distortions-in-media-coverage-of-antisemitism-and-the-labour-party

 

 

 

So a comprehensive study into the media reporting of the antisemitism 'crisis' in Labour has shown beyond doubt what those of us with an objective viewpoint could see quite clearly all along: that Corbyn has been the target of a relentless disinformation campaign by the corporate media and the BBC.

 

Who would have thought it eh?

Just had a look at the Media Reform Coalition website. Bunch of pinko academics. The sort of ****s who wear berets and have bad dental health.

They are clearly biased

Just had a look at the Media Reform Coalition website. Bunch of pinko academics....

That's the first thing that anyone genuinely interested in politics needs to do nowadays when reading an article or comment piece that's purely online. Read about the organisation first that's publishing it, check out Companies House, looks for other articles about them on Google etc.

Usually you find out that the organsiation is sponsored by various trusts and funds, and you then have to bounce to other searches to find out about them, and finally you find out that they have an overt political agenda.

Almost zero online only articles are truly independant or unbiased.

Who would have thought that the Corbynist Justin Schlosberg would have written a report defending Corbyn. I'm shocked.

Come on Verbal - play the ball, not the man.

Can you dispute the findings of the report?

http://www.mediareform.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Labour-antisemitism-and-the-news-FINAL-CORRECTED.pdf

Objective viewpoint ha! You've been nakedly partisan from the very start.

Oh FFS, I don't know haw many more times I am going to have to repeat myself on this.

Yes, I make no secret of my contempt for the current Tory government, and yes, my views and opinions mean I naturally lean towards Labour, but I am not a 'Corbynista'. I think he has some good qualities, but I also think he has some very poor ones. I am very skeptical about his suitability for the Labour leadership or the role of PM. He doesn't have the authority to unite his party, and he has definitely shown questionable judgement in some of the people he has associated himself with in the past. Even if his intentions were benign, that's not a good look for a prospective PM. His failure to open a significant gap in the polls over the worst government in living memory is also quite worrying, but then how much of that is down to the negative propaganda he has been subjected to I wonder?

So rather than defend him out of some blind loyalty, I have always striven to use critical analysis when looking at the accusations against him, because I genuinely want to do due diligence and find out whether he is deserving of my support or not. And the inevitable conclusion I have drawn from this is that the incessant media attacks on him since he became Labour leader are mostly without merit, and quite blatantly driven by a political agenda, both from his political opponents at home and abroad, and from those within his own party who would rather see the Tories stay in power than allow him to become PM.

The narrative being pushed by many over recent months - that he is a rabid antisemite who has deliberately cultivated a hostile environment towards Jews in his party - is patently false, as despite all of the column inches and airtime given to it, nobody has yet been able to present a single shred of convincing evidence to prove it. Show me some and I will hold my hands up and accept it. But you can't, because there isn't any.

But, and here's the thing, this campaign is having the opposite effect than what was intended. People are wising up to the fact that it's all a propaganda campaign, and this is actually galvanising his support rather than eroding it. I'm seeing evidence of this all over social media - people who have decided to join the Labour party and support him in response to what they see as a disgraceful campaign of lies and distortion.

Oh FFS, I don't know haw many more times I am going to have to repeat myself on this.

 

Yes, I make no secret of my contempt for the current Tory government, and yes, my views and opinions mean I naturally lean towards Labour, but I am not a 'Corbynista'. I think he has some good qualities, but I also think he has some very poor ones. I am very skeptical about his suitability for the Labour leadership or the role of PM. He doesn't have the authority to unite his party, and he has definitely shown questionable judgement in some of the people he has associated himself with in the past. Even if his intentions were benign, that's not a good look for a prospective PM. His failure to open a significant gap in the polls over the worst government in living memory is also quite worrying, but then how much of that is down to the negative propaganda he has been subjected to I wonder?

You can keep telling everyone you hold an "objective viewpoint" but your continuous posts on this thread shows you hold anything but. At least you're being slightly more honest now about your vehement dislike for the Conservatives and your soft spot for Labour. I disagree with Jonnyboy on virtually every issue but at least he is very open about the fact that he is a big supporter of Antifa and Corbyn's Labour. The evidence contradicts your statements about being objective otherwise you would not spend every other post rabidly defending Corbyn against some imagined conspiracy and suggesting that vast numbers of "sheeple" that hold a different opinion to you have been hugely influenced by this conspiracy- it couldn't be that they simply hold different opinions and have come to different conclusions, it has to be that they are thick idiots that have fallen for all the media lies! I accept that there are many people who vehemently disagree with my opinions on Corbyn, brexit etc but unlike you I'm not going to pretend that they all been brainwashed by some shadowy media conspiracy. Corbyn has some terrible optics, he isn't a leader, he's the least inspiring politician I've ever seen lead a political party- yes worse than even IDS and Michael Howard- and he's hung around and supported some incredibly dodgy people. The anti-semitism row is largely down to his mishandling and lack of communication regarding the whole thing and his refusal to act quickly and decisively. The reason he's so unpopular is nothing to do with easily influenced idiots, it's because the British public have seen him with their own eyes for a long time now, they've seen his policies and the way he conducts himself and they aren't convinced by what they see.

 

 

So rather than defend him out of some blind loyalty, I have always striven to use critical analysis when looking at the accusations against him, because I genuinely want to do due diligence and find out whether he is deserving of my support or not. And the inevitable conclusion I have drawn from this is that the incessant media attacks on him since he became Labour leader are mostly without merit, and quite blatantly driven by a political agenda, both from his political opponents at home and abroad, and from those within his own party who would rather see the Tories stay in power than allow him to become PM.

 

The narrative being pushed by many over recent months - that he is a rabid antisemite who has deliberately cultivated a hostile environment towards Jews in his party - is patently false, as despite all of the column inches and airtime given to it, nobody has yet been able to present a single shred of convincing evidence to prove it. Show me some and I will hold my hands up and accept it. But you can't, because ther

 

You've invented the idea that that is the overriding narrative being pushed. Corbyn has brought accusations of anti-semitism on himself by being slow to react to allegations, through a lack of proper communication, by hanging out and supporting all manner of shady individuals- some of whom are clearly anti-semitic and by making statements that could easily be interpreted as anti-semitic. He's clearly not a raving anti-semite doing his best to make things hostile for Jews but he isn't some whiter than white Jewish champion that has been lied about like you imply. His own actions have caused doubt and ambiguity. This may have been seized upon by some in the media but he really only has himself to blame if this is the case.

 

But, and here's the thing, this campaign is having the opposite effect than what was intended. People are wising up to the fact that it's all a propaganda campaign, and this is actually galvanising his support rather than eroding it. I'm seeing evidence of this all over social media - people who have decided to join the Labour party and support him in response to what they see as a disgraceful campaign of lies and distortion.

If you say so but I expect that's just the liberal types that you hang around with. Most people I know including many traditional Labour voters think he's a fringe loony that would damage the country in a number of ways- mostly by giving the likes of McDonnell any sort of power- but maybe the people I know just don't get too upset by silly things the Sun, The Mail and the Guardian print. I don't see any evidence that he is gaining large groundswells of support. It's like when Michael Foot held his rallys and was convinced he was going to smash the election because people were so enthusiastic when he met them but he neglected the bulk of the electorate. The vast majority of people don't give a toss about the cult of personality around Corbyn.

ANd just had a look at this Justin blokes twitter feed. Absolutely nothing partisan or biased there at all!

Come on Verbal - play the ball, not the man.

 

Can you dispute the findings of the report?

 

http://www.mediareform.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Labour-antisemitism-and-the-news-FINAL-CORRECTED.pdf

Dear god, how to explain this to you? If a report exonerated May of the Windrush scandal, and it turned out to be written by a Tory party central office researcher, then it would be legitimate to 'play the man', right? I mean, how the hell do you take seriously a report written by one of her flunkies?

Shlosberg is not only a Corbynist. He makes clear in the actual report you link to here that he's an 'active' member of Jewish Voice for Labour - the group of Jews and 'self-identifying Jews' (!) that was set up specifically, just in the last year, to ride shotgun with Corbyn against the mainstream Jewish community's complaints of Corbynist anti-Semitism. This is the group, by the way, that has targeted and harassed members of the Jewish Labour Movement, which has been affiliated with the Labour party since 1920.

Shlosberg then makes the specious claim to 'independence'. You go one further than this absurdity, though - and claim the report is 'objective'? Please, please tell me you can see now that that's nonsense!

As for content, there's a whole section on methodology at the beginning that amounts to a complete red herring. There's a great deal of guff about 'coding', which appears to give a gloss on how the 'data' is handled. And there is a great song and dance about how Shlosberg has been 'cautious' with the data given the 'sensitivity of the subject. But then he and the freelance journalist he roped in go on to ignore all that and give their own highly personalised (and Corbynised) interpretations of issues like 'Codegate', enter their interpretations into the 'code' and hey presto - Corbynists are innocent! The press are evil! ERGO - Corbynists are not anti-Semitic at all! One non-sequiter after another...

If you say so but I expect that's just the liberal types that you hang around with. Most people I know including many traditional Labour voters think he's a fringe loony that would damage the country in a number of ways- mostly by giving the likes of McDonnell any sort of power- but maybe the people I know just don't get too upset by silly things the Sun, The Mail and the Guardian print. I don't see any evidence that he is gaining large groundswells of support. It's like when Michael Foot held his rallys and was convinced he was going to smash the election because people were so enthusiastic when he met them but he neglected the bulk of the electorate. The vast majority of people don't give a toss about the cult of personality around Corbyn.

That what was said before the last general election, hence the title of this thread.