Jeremy Corbyn

Well make your mind up!! You just said :

That's an interesting volte-face.

And you're now claiming it's nothing of the sort and he's always intervened in the internal politics of Arab countries.

Which one is it, my little point-scoring Tory troll ?

Israel and Lebanon aren't Arab countries...

Israel and Lebanon aren't Arab countries...

Lebanon is what, then ?

Palestine is definitely Arab, as are Palestinians of course, my little petty Tory troll.

Palestine is definitely Arab

Palestine isn't a country 😆

Oh yes it is, as far me and Jeremy Corbyn are concerned. A country under Zionist occupation.

The Lebanese government seems to disagree with you.

http://www.ministryinfo.gov.lb/en/sub/Lebanon/LebaneseConstitution.aspx

Two. Lebanon is Arab in its identity and in its association. It is a founding and active member of the League of Arab States and abides by its pacts and covenants. Lebanon is also a founding and active member of the United Nations Organization and abides by its covenants and by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Government shall embody these principals in all fields and areas without exception.

Some interesting claims about Scotland/SNP from JC on Marr Show today. Particular highlight was claiming that SNP privatised Scotrail...

Maybe he made the mistake of asking Kezia? I was at the same school as her,by time she went it had been a state school for less than 20 years,my parents acted like they had won the lottery when I got in because it was that good. Kezia stayed in the nice area that sent its kids there automatically, yet she described it as an inner city concrete jungle. Pretty mean after they made her head girl dontchathink?

Better than expected on Marr IMO. Ok, the odd bit of BS (inheritance tax nonsense), but controlled, articulate and kept himself in check rather well for a non-spin MP

Judging by the internet chatter, I suspect the false claims made on the Marr show about the SNP have harmed Labour's prospects in Scotland. Hopefully this is misinformation fed to him, and not simply a continuation of the Scottish Labour Party's lies and false claims. If so, he can recover.

I'll keep my fingers crossed that he manages to reintroduce humanity back into the Labour party though. He's probably playing a softly softly agenda. It may be his lack of serious responsibilities in the past may make this a steep learning curve.

His day didn't finish as well as it started

Still good to see the [s]Conviction[/s] compromise.

Odd comments from Corbyn on inheritance tax, calling Osbourne's policy as "a tax break for the richest". What Osbourne has done is cut inheritance tax for those with an estate between £650k and £1m. Does anyone seriously think those people are the "richest" in the UK.

As per @tmh's note above another massive climb down / dose of pragmatism over Tridnet. We won't even discuss it. At least the Labour conference gets the joke that even the discussion is a vote loser,

Ach, I kinda expected it but still sad to see - Corbyn's decided that electoral prospects in England demand the same actions as his predecessor, attacking the SNP instead of working with them and doing a u-turn on independence.

I think Scottish Labour have worked out that he's going to abandon them too - allowing ScotLab members to support independence, making noises about ScotLab being "affiliated" to the Labour Party instead of taking orders form them, etc.

Back to Labour's basic problem - what Labour needs to do to win votes in England is the opposite to what they need to do to win votes in Scotland.

At least the Labour conference gets the joke that even the discussion is a vote loser

Is that why the SNP which opposes Trident replacement won 56 seats in the the general election in Scotland, while Labour, the Tories, and the LibDems, all of which support Trident replacement, got 1 seat each......because opposition to Trident replacement is "a vote loser" ?

There is no doubt that there is greater opposition to Trident replacement in Scotland than in the rest of the UK, the question is why ?

Well you don't to have look far for the answer.

Unlike in the rest of the UK there have been political debates and discussions concerning Trident in Scotland. The largest party opposes its replacement, people have had the opportunity to listen to the arguments in favour and against. Having done so they have come out against by a large margin.

In the rest of the UK there has been no debate. All 3 main parties (and UKIP) are in favour. People in the rest of the UK have not had the opportunity to hear the arguments in favour and against. Unsurprisingly opposition is therefore smaller.

Stifling debate and denying people the possibility of making informed decisions is not good for democracy, a point not lost on right-wingers like yourself, the Tories, blairites, etc.

But the example of Scotland shows that debating Trident is not a vote loser, on the contrary it is clearly a voter winner.

Your premise is complete false. As you well know of course.

Corbyn's decided that electoral prospects in England demand the same actions as his predecessor, attacking the SNP instead of working with them

He is the leader of the Labour Party. His job doesn't involve helping a rival political party, I would expect him to be expelled from the party if he did.

He needs to offer a credible alternative to the SNP to win votes from them.

You do realise that he needs to win votes from the SNP don't you?

ernie_lynch - Member
...He needs to offer a credible alternative to the SNP to win votes from them.

You do realise that he needs to win votes from the SNP don't you?

Well seeing as the SNP has pinched many of Labour's old policies, maybe reclaiming them instead of moving further right might help. Retaining the ability to obliterate millions of ordinary working class people in faraway countries seems at odds with his declarations of the unity of the working classes.

His apparent support for NI to separate from the UK and become part of the the rest of Ireland while opposing Scottish independence is puzzling many.

This popped up on my morning feed:
[img] [/img]

Like this.

I hope the Labour party manages to stop talking in a way that plays into tory hands and feeds speculation that they are against the middle-classes (anti-austerity, robin hood tax, 'against inheritance tax cuts') and starts to use language which more effectively communicates their position.

As a marketeer, I'm getting really sick of it.

As a marketeer, I'm getting really sick of it.

Ironically, I think a lot of people are heartily sick of having politics delivered by marketeers.

Listening to Corbyn interviewed on Five Live this morning, it was really refreshing to listen to a politician actually answer questions, and express his actual views, instead of endlessly repeating the same central office approved soundbites, that they've focus grouped to death over the previous couple of weeks.

We're heartily sick of this...

[img] [/img]

As a marketeer, I'm getting really sick of it.
Ironically, I think a lot of people are heartily sick of having politics delivered by marketeers.

This +100.

Yvette Cooper is a perfect example of this. Never really answering a question or expressing a strong opinion. I couldn't watch her on TV, with her trained hand gestures and facial expressions. As she has been told this would express sincerity and openness.

Absolute bullshit.

Totally agree binners - but currently they are supporting tory marketing, buy repeating their phrases.
There's no need to make it sound rehearsed, spun and bulleted, but there is a need to communicate effectively without falling into traps.

In the video he released last night, he says "an alternative to Austerity", then went on to say "no need for tax credit cuts taking over £1200 a year from the poorest families". The latter is the crux (along with a whole lot of other things) making the former redundant.

When he then says "cutting inheritance tax which broadly helps the wealthy" he's missing the fact that everyone hates inheritance tax - especially hard workers who have saved all their lives who would be exactly his target audience. It's a stealth tax that makes everyone feel cheated.

So you have to reword it so that people realise the aims of what you're trying to do and also so that the press can't simply lead with "Corbyn against inheritance tax cuts".

Looks right now like Trident is Labours equivalent of the Tories EU. If Corbyn is going to get pushed around that much by his own party he's in trouble, as the electorate will see him as weak.

Whether you like marketing or not, it is essential for Labour to provide a unified front, mixed messages and jocking for position in the public eye aren't smart.

From the bbc live feed

whilst he has spent a lifetime opposing the UK's nuclear weapons, he knows plenty of his colleagues are fully committed to them. But the very fact it is even being debated tells you how very, very different this conference, and Labour, now is.

That sounds interesting.

If Corbyn is going to get pushed around that much by his own party he's in trouble

Well this comes down to governing by consensus instead of autocracy, doens't it? It's a bit ridiculous to try and operate in a democratic institution by being autocratic. The party should represent the views of the majority of its members, and the views of its MPs who're representing their constituents. The alternative is the Blair approach - you really advocating that?

His apparent support for NI to separate from the UK and become part of the the rest of Ireland while opposing Scottish independence is puzzling many.

Well, both situations are different, so taking each as a complex issue rather than simply sticking to a simplisitc notion would seem to be sensible, no?

The membership of both main parties have been treated with utter contempt for decades now, in favour of rule by a cabal of the 'Political Caste' who consider themselves to be on some kind of higher level than everyone else, take decisions without consultation, totally ignoring facts that are inconvenient, and advice that contradicts their own views, or motives.

The absolute epitome of this was Blair taking us into Iraq.

Heres an interesting article about party democracy, and the lack of respect for it, that some Blairites could do with reading

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/27/jeremy-corbyn-labour-conference ]Corbyn won. Handle it better.[/url]

epicyclo - Member

Retaining the ability to obliterate millions of ordinary working class people in faraway countries seems at odds with his declarations of the unity of the working classes.

That silly and deliberately disingenuous comment could have come straight out of one of ninfan's posts, I doubt that even jambalaya would make such as crass comment.

I would have expected better from you epicyclo, I obviously overestimated you. Still, I've learnt something already today - as they say, everyday is a school day.

Time to take your posts less seriously I reckon 🙂

When he then says "cutting inheritance tax which broadly helps the wealthy" he's missing the fact that everyone hates inheritance tax - especially hard workers who have saved all their lives who would be exactly his target audience. It's a stealth tax that makes everyone feel cheated

1. Some folk hate all tax not everyone does though
2. How does one save hard to have over 325k in assets at death? It suggests a very healthy income in the first place- quite possibly a southern thing due to massive house price gains but that was hardly hard work as they did nothing to get it from the housing bubble.
3.Stealth would suggest it goes unnoticed
4. I dont feel cheated by it so stop everyone as you dont speak for us all anymore than I do.

I feel cheated that poor people are getting hammered whilst the bette roff are getting the tax break

I don't understand why the unions think that Trident is about jobs.
£100 billion vs max 10,000 jobs
That's 10 million per worker!

Just listened to John McDonnell's speech.

Have to say - that was spot-on.

I don't understand why the unions think that Trident is about jobs.

From a composite resolution on economic policy passed two years ago at the Trades Union Congress :

[i]Public finances can also be improved by addressing tax avoidance and scrapping the replacement of Trident. Money saved by ending our nuclear weapons system could be used to sustain the process of defence diversification, vital to our manufacturing future.[/i]

[quote=AlexSimon said]I don't understand why the unions think that Trident is about jobs.
£100 billion vs max 10,000 jobs
That's 10 million per worker!

£100 billion over 35 years.

I'm crap at maths but does £10 million per worker over 35 years sound alright then?

£285,714 pa
The point I was making is that first you decide whether Trident is necessary from a deterrent/defence pov. To make it about jobs is staggering.

Len McCluskey of Unite:

"Everyone would love the whole world to get rid of nuclear weapons - we understand the moral arguments and cost arguments in these days of austerity.

"However, the most important thing for us is to protect jobs. In the absence of any credible alternative to protect jobs and high skills we will vote against any anti-Trident resolution."

So surely you focus on securing 'a credible alternative' rather than assume that the only thing these people can do it create submarines and warheads!

That paragraph that I quoted on the previous page was actually a Unite amendment 2 years ago to a Communication Workers Union resolution at the TUC on economic policy. Here it is again :

[i]Insert new paragraph 4 as penultimate paragraph:
“Money saved by ending our nuclear weapons
system could be used to sustain the process of
defence diversification, vital to our manufacturing
future. Such a policy would need to ensure that the
jobs and skills of tens of thousands of workers in the
sector were preserved.” [/i]

It was passed at the TUC conference.

I think it's fair to say that there needs to be a proper debate on trident replacement, the Labour Movement's position at the present is a mess. I think everyone can agree on that. Except possibly the right-wing blairites.

Surely it's Unites job to defend their workers interests and in this case it is their member's jobs working on Trident. Not much point paying your money to a Union who are going to throw you under a bus.

"However, the most important thing for us is to protect jobs. In the absence of any credible alternative to protect jobs and high skills we will vote against any anti-Trident resolution."

I have to say I agree with this. I'd rather we didn't have Trident, but am happy to keep it to maintain the large number of highly skilled people who work on it and the associated supply chain etc. We'd lose a huge range of specialist skills if we just canned it over night and threw everyone on the doll.

You've never been to Barrow, have you?

The lucky bastard

ernie_lynch - Member
"epicyclo - Member
Retaining the ability to obliterate millions of ordinary working class people in faraway countries seems at odds with his declarations of the unity of the working classes."

That silly and deliberately disingenuous comment could have come straight out of one of ninfan's posts, I doubt that even jambalaya would make such as crass comment.

What's crass is a weapon of mass destruction capable of frying millions of ordinary people, children included.

Meanwhile, the new Labour attitude:

[img] ?oh=ddae070371ad7c9b6d98de11f073e63b&oe=5695BC11[/img]

Yeah as I said epicyclo ....... silly and deliberately disingenuous.

You are of course fully aware of Corbyn's position on Trident and that the decision not to debate the issue wasn't his.

But that didn't stop you from deliberately misrepresenting the situation by claiming :

[i]"Retaining the ability to obliterate millions of ordinary working class people in faraway countries seems [u]at odds with his declarations[/u] of the unity of the working classes."[/i]

He is not supporting retaining the ability to obliterate millions of ordinary working class people in faraway countries, as well you know.

It's a completely disingenuous comment of the sort that ninfan makes to score pathetic partisan points.

Maybe Corbyn might ask the Labour membership decide on Trident if its going to be this much of a thorny issue.

Corbyn has made it clear that the Labour Party itself will be deciding policy, not one man as previously was the case when the blairite right were in control :

https://www.politicshome.com/party-politics/articles/story/jeremy-corbyn-labour-members-will-decide-policy-if-i-am-leader

http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-scrapping-trident-would-become-labour-policy-on-conference-vote-1.901679

It would however be very strange if the party didn't agree with Corbyn, after all he received 60% of the vote just a couple of weeks ago - the greatest level of support of any leader in Labour Party history.

So you have to assume that his opposition to austerity, trident, tuition fees, etc, has fairly widespread support in the party. To vote for someone whose opinions and views you don't agree with would be pretty daft.

I'd rather we didn't have Trident, but am happy to keep it to maintain the large number of highly skilled people who work on it and the associated supply chain etc. We'd lose a huge range of specialist skills if we just canned it over night and threw everyone on the doll.

If the point is to keep workers employed, then they could be employed on something more economically productive for the UK and better for the world than Trident.

But could they justify spending £100 billion on something which wasn't a weapon of mass destruction ?

I doubt it.

My understanding is that Unison and the GMB were for Trident which would have meant any motion would have been defeated - see [url= http://news.sky.com/story/1559870/inside-story-of-how-labour-fudged-trident-vote ]here[/url]

John McDonnell on Newsnight now. It really is remarkable the lack of bullshit spin in his delivery - much more like a conversation. Rather than saying 'we're great and the others are shit' he's just discussing it. And even answering questions by saying 'yes' and 'no'. That alone gets a huge amount of sympathy from me.

Of course, he'll need some answers to the bigger questions soon enough.

I like John McDonnell I have a lot of respect for him, and like him I consider myself to be a pragmatic idealist. But I can't say that I feel particularly comfortable with how much ground he's been giving.

No doubt he's receiving a lot of advice (although I think he's personally very competent to handle his economics brief) and I'm sure he's under pressure from Corbyn who is to the right of him.

Although to be honest I was originally concerned that he might be too enthusiastic rather than too cautious.

But could they justify spending £100 billion on something which wasn't a weapon of mass destruction ?

I doubt it.

Four or five new nuclear power stations to replace decommissioned coal stations, end of life current nuke stations and reduce dependence on imported gas would cost 100Bn.

Retaining expertise is given as a justification for Trident. Meanwhile we are getting the French and Chinese at vast expense to build our next nuclear power station. Funny how when 10% of the population went to univ we built our own nuke power stations and now that 45% go to univ we seem to have lost the ability.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/sep/27/hinkley-point-what-price-avoiding-humiliation

The today's Tories have a pathological (and ideological) hatred for British state-owned enterprises. As you would expect pathological hatred leads to completely irrational behaviour, so we end up with the ludicrous situation where French, Chinese, and other foreign state-owned enterprises, successfully secure UK government (read UK taxpayer funded/supported) contracts and franchises.

On the question of the UK allegedly lacking the technological skills to construct nuclear power stations it should be pointed out that Argentina, Argentina ffs, has designed and built a nuclear reactor for the Australian government.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1480511.stm

I consider myself to be a pragmatic idealist.

Me too, and I don't know why Evan had such a problem with this idea.

TBH interviewers [ and i really only listen to the BBC] do seem to have got much more interrogative and I heard him the other day laugh and ask to be allowed to answer the question radio 4 - he was right as well.

they just seem to want to attack an imagined hole in an argument rather than just let folk explain their positions

Many positions are complicated and no one has all the answers so far better to get a feel for their "pragmatic idealism" than take one sound bite and run with it

ernie_lynch - Member
that I feel particularly comfortable with how much ground he's been giving.

Essentially, sometimes you need to give ground to gain it back. Guess that's the art of compromise.

And I also suspect this is a required tactic if longevity is going to be a factor of the Corbyn leadership.

The make up of the party in a couple of years is probably the most important factor tbh.

they just seem to want to attack an imagined hole in an argument rather than just let folk explain their positions

Andrew Neil did an awful one on Lucy Powell yesterday.
Although she needs to be better prepared to say why it's perfectly reasonable that the party doesn't have all the answers as hard policy yet.

AlexSimon - Member
they just seem to want to attack an imagined hole in an argument rather than just let folk explain their positions

Agree entirely Junkyard. Point out a flaw if you come from a position of knowledge, but their ego just seems to want to tie the interviewee in knots so that they can appear 'tough' of that 'they won'.

It does need to be far more conversational to let them expound on their views rather than adversarial where they try to twist their words /meanings to use it against them and spin them back in twisted manner

Slightly OT, but I see this thing more and more, where someone posts a picture with some naive and simplistic slogan added in, as though it is a substitute for intelligent criticism. Maybe I need to re-calibrate my expectations (or, tbh, my Facebook friends).

[img] ?oh=ddae070371ad7c9b6d98de11f073e63b&oe=5695BC11[/img]

they just seem to want to attack an imagined hole in an argument rather than just let folk explain their positions

Sounds familiar, is Evan Davies on here? 🙂

Seriously though, the media are a joke, and if the Corbyn 'revolution' achieves one thing, it'll be to expose the hollow, personality driven egotism of the media and 'journalists' who prefer to be the story rather than simply reporting on it. The only one I've got any time for is Paul Mason.

I was just about to post the same thing dazh.

Corbyn may not make it to PM or even the election, but there's a chance his influence could completely change the political landscape. Imagine if interviewers came to discuss the issues rather than batter their interviewee... Jez seems to be able to subvert that by simply turning the other cheek.. OMG.. JC.. It's all becoming so clear now....

[i] Junkyard - lazarus
TBH interviewers [ and i really only listen to the BBC] do seem to have got much more interrogative and I heard him the other day laugh and ask to be allowed to answer the question radio 4 - he was right as well.[/i]

I heard that interview and he was far from correct but instead contradicted himself saying £120 bn of uncollected tax could be used to great effect. Only later, when pressed, did he then offer a figure of £20 bn was likely to be practicably collected.

To which the interviewer then, correctly pointed out he wasn't paying for all the thing you can with £120 bn when in reality you've only £20 bn.

The Conservatives are treated equally as combatively, ime.

However, if someone was looking for bias at the BBC, check how the BBC always refer to the Conservatives as "Tories" yet the BBC refer to Labour as "Labour"

They've been called Tories since the 18th century or something.

However, if someone was looking for bias at the BBC, check how the BBC always refer to the Conservatives as "Tories" yet the BBC refer to Labour as "Labour"

Tory is in the dictionary as "a member or supporter of the Conservative Party" so it's not like it's slang, or defamatory.

(they seem to throw "Left-wing Labour..." around very freely)

I heard that interview and he was far from correct but instead contradicted himself saying £120 bn of uncollected tax could be used to great effect. Only later, when pressed, did he then offer a figure of £20 bn was likely to be practicably collected.

To which the interviewer then, correctly pointed out he wasn't paying for all the thing you can with £120 bn when in reality you've only £20 bn.

That's how I heard it.

In addition to that McDonnel's been citing over 300bn IIRC, a number he got out of a newspaper.

Jeremy's got the stage to himself today to set out detailed policy without any interviewer butting in. Yet it seems he's avoiding disclosing policy to a large degree.

Having just read the last few pages of this thread....I've decided its a perfect parallel with rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic!

[quote=outofbreath said] Yet it seems he's avoiding disclosing policy to a large degree.

I guess because the policies haven't been agreed yet.

Seriously though, the media are a joke, and if the Corbyn 'revolution' achieves one thing, it'll be to expose the hollow, personality driven egotism of the media and 'journalists' who prefer to be the story rather than simply reporting on it.

I doubt it - Corbynmania is heavily reliant itself on the media, arguably a creation of it. Nothing new there - Farrage, Clegg etc, all hyped up by the media before the bubble burst.

The only one I've got any time for is Paul Mason.

Why is he any different - other than a particular view? All leading up to a book like most of them....

Corbynmania is heavily reliant itself on the media

Only in so far as that's how the message is propogated. It's not itself a creation of the media, in fact it's the complete opposite.

I would suggest that JC is not in it for a book deal. He's been in it for a bloody long time, seemingly because he's just doing what he thinks is right.

So yeah I would say he's different.

Corbynmania is heavily reliant itself on the media, arguably a creation of it.

That's probably the weirdest thing I've heard you say.

Well we can agree to differ mol! Its been a self-re-enforcing phenonemon. I think he has demonstrated an extremely high level of media-saviness, to his credit, including a very advanced understanding of the power of social media. For the papers, the panto element has been a godsend.

For all the so-called spin training, the others were very weak and held little for the media to get their teeth into either way.

Papers have pages to fill, TV has minutes to fill. And light entertainment is always a winner 😉 while the rest of us get on with work!!

You're making it sound like the media is creating Corbyn as a phenomenon, when it's very clear they were trying to shut him down. On both sides, for different reasons.

He's simply said what he believes in - that's not being media savvy. The opposite, in fact, since he stuck by what he believes in despite a media backlash.

No hint of compromise anywhere?

Why would you shut him down, its brilliant for circulation figures? They have lapped it up.

Watch this space as they say.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/fb1ad42e-65c2-11e5-a28b-50226830d644.html#axzz3n7C1ENiK

Sets the context rather well IMO - although he is clearly no JC fan!

I think he is little different from the rest to be honest lots wishy, washy cr*p 'a new kinder politics' it means nothing, just sound bites.

Any ideas on how to tackle the big issues, anything on immigration, taxes, energy etc. nope.

I had to laugh at this comment on the Guardian:

He talked of helping the self-employed. Why don't the self-employed do their bit to help the economy by paying some bloody tax. I've had to use a number of local tradespeople lately, all cash in hand, no receipts.

I think he is little different from the rest to be honest lots wishy, washy cr*p 'a new kinder politics' it means nothing, just sound bites.

You really haven't been watching very closely then!

The Fabian conclusion

While the left of the party have been building, Labour’s mainstream has lazily relied on the strength of the party machine and the profile of the leader. It is not a coincidence that this summer the moderate candidates were swamped on social media by so called Corbynistas. They don’t have a gang to fight for them. Facing ‘movement politics’, they had only the strength of their argument. In politics, that is never enough.

Jeremy Corbyn didn’t win this election thanks to miscreant entryists, he won a majority among members and among legitimate Labour supporters. [b]He didn’t win it because he’s personally charismatic. He didn’t even win it because Labour members suddenly surged to the left. He won because people were fed up with a tired status quo, and because Labour’s mainstream failed to organise and renew[/b].

molgrips - Member

You're making it sound like the media is creating Corbyn as a phenomenon, when it's very clear they were trying to shut him down. On both sides, for different reasons.

He's simply said what he believes in - that's not being media savvy. The opposite, in fact, since he stuck by what he believes in despite a media backlash.

It is the job of the media to stir things up a bit or they will be made redundant ...

Like every other politicians JC (not Jesus Christ) is just another politician with his own views ... savvy or not is just a PR thing. Some adopt a soft image while others the hard man/woman.

Bottom line they want to become a full member of a bigger nanny state and they want to change the world! 😯

molgrips feel free to enlighten me then? Or does he just mean avoiding hard decisions?

Every other mainstream politician tells the public what they think we want to hear. In interviews, they are sent in with a ready worked out angle, and interviewers try to get them to admit something that goes counter to their official story.

Corbyn & co don't seem to be doing that. He has been elected on what he actually believes in, and has been campaigning on for years, so he doesn't have to spin.

Watching John McDonnell last night the interview was a discussion about the problems and the solutions he'd like to see, including many straight yes and no answers to questions. When was the last time you saw a politican do that?

Watched the speech in full.
Thought some of it was excellent, but a missed opportunity to correct the wrongs of the Milliband era and really set out the economic policy in a way that would convince sceptics.

I think he has demonstrated an extremely high level of media-saviness

Up until the first poll which showed that he was on course to become the next leader of the Labour Party the media had completely and utterly ignored Corbyn, they were far more interested in Andy Burnham and Yvette Cooper.

Corbyn didn't need the media to go from 200/1 to favourite, he achieved that while they totally blanked him.

After it was obvious that he was the favourite the media did indeed take a keen interest in him, mostly to denounce and criticise him.

Corbyn's supporters didn't need the media to tell them how to vote, his support just grew until the final result showed that he had received 50% more votes than all the other candidates put together, and greatest level of support of any Labour leader in history.

I don't know how you think Corbyn used the media - I assume that's what you mean by "media-saviness". Perhaps you think he manipulated the media so that they would denounce him as far-left extremist, deliberately misrepresent him, and criticise every conceivable aspect of his politics? ffs

For the papers, the panto element has been a godsend.

Papers have pages to fill, TV has minutes to fill. And light entertainment is always a winner while the rest of us get on with work!!

So far today the funniest thing I've encountered are your bizarre claims on this thread, which I have to be honest offer little in the way of light entertainment value.

From the guardian, supposedly a 'Snap verdict'. Who are they trying to kid? It's obviously a pre-written hatchet job. You can almost smell the sour grapes. They really need to get over Corbyn winning.

Corbyn’s speech - Snap verdict: Giving a political speech looks like a straightforward undertaking, but there’s an art and a craft to it and there is a reason why great conferences speeches succeeed. This wasn’t a great conference speech. In fact, judged technically, it was second-rate, or worse. It meandered, it had no real structure (at one point Corbyn even appeared to repeat himself), and it lacked an obvious punch. Oratory - even the low-grade stuff you get a British party conference - is about crafting messages in a form so that they resonate, and stir the heart, and lodge in the mind (at least for a week or so). With this one, it was not even clear what the one over-riding message was.

Yet that’s the old politics assessment, and the whole point about Corbyn is that he different, and that he won a surprise election victory because people were fed up with that sort of conventional statecraft. Corbyn explained this well, and perhaps the best bits in the speech were those when he mocked media commentators. The passage about sports reporters dismissing a club with a growing fan base as a failure was particularly effective. To his credit, Corbyn did not allow himself to be tempted into saying anything inauthentic. Much of the speech reflect his long career in grassroots protesting, and even the passage about how he loved Britain because of its values (the one pushed by the spin doctors, anxious to counter the negative impact of anthem-gate) sounded genuine. A more plastic figure could easily have been enticed into phoney patriotism.

Everything he said was consistent with the campaign he ran during the leadership campaign. They wanted an ethical socialist antidote to spin, and that’s what they got this afternoon - even if it went on a bit longer than some of them may have wanted.

Other left/idealist types fed up with the status quo will be enticed as well. But Corbyn had little or nothing to say to people outside the “insurgency bubble” (to coin a phrase), people not stirred by quotes form Keir Hardie, people who may even have voted Conservative. He had a lot to say on housing (or too much - he repeated himself), but he had little to say on health or education and immigration, a key issue for many, was only discussed in terms of the refugee crisis. To return to the football club analogy, the club may have 160,000 new fans. But it lost it’s last big match, it’s been relegated and, on the basis of this speech, the captain/owner hasn’t given any thought at all to why.

It was a sincere speech, and it marked a departure. But it is hard to see how it advances Labour politically.

Watching John McDonnell last night the interview was a discussion about the problems and the solutions he'd like to see, including many straight yes and no answers to questions. When was the last time you saw a politican do that?

Probably either Ken Clarke or Tony Benn and a fat lot of good it did for them.

He has been elected on what he actually believes in, and has been campaigning on for years, so he doesn't have to spin.

But can you tell me what the Labour party currently believes in? We might know what JC thinks but that doesn't seem to be relating to Labour policy, see Trident. Today JC just talked in a load of bland platitudes.