was corbyn really against the remain?

[kentonio]

The Guardian are being total ****s with their coverage and opinion pieces. I'm not a particular Corbyn fan, but they're so in the corner for New Labour it's actually embarrassing.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

For something a little bit different

Eagle claims that she could win a general election – and to be fair she might have a slight chance, as long as she’s allowed to keep all the other parties off the ballot paper. She does have a gift for explaining her ideas, after all. Asked on the Today programme why she voted for the Iraq war, she said “I’m a Northern working class girl who understands the nuances of modern life.”

That put the Chilcot report in its place. It was all very well Sir John writing millions of words about weapons inspectors and UN resolutions, but instead of that waffle he should have asked everyone if they were from the North. Tomorrow she’ll be asked, “Why are you in favour of Trident?” and her answer will be “I’ve been to Manchester and understand the rules of table tennis.”

[C0ckney]

The Guardian are being total ****s with their coverage and opinion pieces. I'm not a particular Corbyn fan, but they're so in the corner for New Labour it's actually embarrassing.

yep. it's been going on since he entered the leadership race. such articles often appear, without a hint of irony, alongside ones asking why or bemoaning the fact that labour is losing its working class supporters.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Three-quarters of newspaper stories about Jeremy Corbyn fail to accurately report his views, LSE study finds

Three-quarters of newspaper stories about Jeremy Corbyn in the first months of his leadership either distorted or failed to represent his actual views on subjects, a study has found.

Academics at the London School of Economics analysed the content of eight national newspapers between 1 September and 1 November 2015, when Mr Corbyn was first elected.

The media researchers found that in 52 per cent of articles about the Labour leader, his own views were not included – while in a further 22 per cent they were “present but taken out of context” or otherwise distorted.

In just 15 per cent of 812 articles analysed, Mr Corbyn’s views were present but challenged, and in only 11 per cent were they present without alteration.
.
The newspaper included in the study were The Sun, The Daily Express, The Daily Telegraph, The Daily Mail, the Evening Standard, the Independent, the Daily Mirror and the Guardian.

In terms of tone, fewer than 10 per cent of articles were judged by the researchers to be positive, while more than half were antagonistic or critical. Around a third had a neutral tone.

LSE & the Independent

Here is the actual report.

Foreword

The results of this study show that Jeremy Corbyn was represented unfairly by the British press through a process of vilification that went well beyond the normal limits of fair debate and disagreement in a democracy. Corbyn was often denied his own voice in the reporting on him and sources that were anti-Corbyn tended to outweigh those that support him and his positions.

He was also systematically treated with scorn and ridicule in both the broadsheet and tabloid press in a way that no other political leader is or has been. Even more problematic, the British press has repeatedly associated Corbyn with terrorism and positioned him as a friend of the enemies of the UK.

The result has been a failure to give the newspaper reading public a fair opportunity to form their own judgements about the leader of the country’s main opposition.

The overall conclusion from this is that in this case UK journalism played an attackdog, rather than a watchdog, role. This is unhealthy from a democratic point of view and poses serious ethical questions as to the role of the media in a democracy, especially when it concerns the legitimate contestation of the Government of the day.

When a democracy cannot rely on its press to provide its citizens with information about political parties that meets the basic standards of fairness, then we can expect a political process that is equally unbalanced. Recent events may have provided broader evidence of this disturbing trend.

[C0ckney]

hardly a surprise to anyone who has read any of the coverage about corbyn, but it's nice that someone has taken the time to put some figures on it.

[C0ckney]

meanwhile, here's how angela eagle became an MP.

http://wire.novaramedia.com/2016/07/how-angela-eagle-got-to-be-mp-for-wallasey/

Wallasey is now a solidly Labour-voting constituency, and Angela Eagle, who enjoyed a 16,348 majority in last year’s general election, has been its MP since 1992. Before that, by contrast, Wallasey had historically been a Conservative seat. It was represented by Tory MP Ernest Marples from 1945 to 1974, and then by his successor Lynda Chalker from 1974 to 1992. In 1987, though, Chalker only narrowly held on to the seat, with her majority reduced from 6,708 to 279, in the face of a vigorous campaign by the local Labour party in support of its candidate Lol Duffy.

Duffy would very likely have won, had it not been for the intervention of Frank Field, Labour MP for the neighbouring Birkenhead constituency. Field circulated a letter attacking Duffy, who at the time was associated with the Socialist Organiser group. He declared that he would not be supporting Duffy’s candidacy and would refuse to appear on any platform with him. The letter was published on the front page of a local paper, during the election campaign, under the headline ‘Marxist Lol slammed by Frank Field’.

No action was taken by the party against Frank Field over this political scabbing that ensured a Tory victory in Wallasey. Instead, in response to his denunciations of the role of Socialist Organiser activists in Wirral Labour party, the Labour national executive committee (NEC) launched an investigation into the group. A report by the party’s director of organisation, ‘witchfinder general’ Joyce Gould, led to the proscription of Socialist Organiser in 1990.

Richard Heffernan and Mike Marqusee (Defeat from the Jaws of Victory, pp.280–82) take up the story:

One result of the move against Socialist Organiser was to delay the parliamentary selection in Wallasey. Lol Duffy, the local favourite, had publicly severed all his links with the banned group. The Wallasey Labour party officers pressed for a prompt start to the selection procedure. After all, this was now a highly winnable seat and it made sense to have a candidate in place as early as possible. The national Labour party and the regional office prevaricated; it seemed that the leadership was waiting for a general election to be called so that a candidate other than Duffy could be imposed.

In December 1991 the regional office was forced at last to agree a selection timetable with the constituency officers. Duffy received over 70% of the nominations including the support of five of the six local party branches, the women’s section and numerous trade unions. His 24 nominations far exceeded the tally of five achieved by his nearest rival, Angela Eagle, a COHSE full-time official, former chair of the Oxford University Fabian Society and a supporter of the LCC [Labour Co-ordinating Committee].

In January 1992 the NEC decided that the imminence of a general election demanded the intervention of an emergency ‘by-election panel’ to interview potential candidates and shortlist contenders in those constituencies without a Labour candidate already in place. Quite why an NEC panel could operate any faster than local party officers was not explained. During the panel’s interviewing of Wallasey candidates, Roy Hattersley asked Lol Duffy how he would reconcile his personal beliefs  – notably his support for unilateralism and repeal of all anti-union laws  –  with the party’s present policy. From a man who had regularly denounced party policy in the past, this was pure cheek. Duffy made it clear that he would have no problem with this. Many other candidates found themselves in the same position, but to no great surprise, Hattersley’s NEC panel excluded Duffy from the Wallasey shortlist. John Evans explained to reporters the panel’s reasoning: “On almost every area Mr Duffy said that although he would campaign on agreed policies he didn’t personally agree with them.” In other words, Duffy was being punished not because he was personally unsuitable but because he did not share the politics of the Labour leadership.

Under the rules of the Labour party, if more than 50% of those who vote in a parliamentary selection return blank ballot papers the selection must start from scratch with new nominations. Contrary to party rules, no independent scrutineer was allowed into the Wallasey count held at the regional office in Warrington. When pressed, Eileen Murfin [Labour party regional organiser] admitted that the officials had not bothered to count the blank votes, again in contravention of the rules. But sources leaked the total to the media, which reported that 163 blank papers had been returned by local members in protest at the exclusion of Lol Duffy. Only 57 votes had been cast for the ‘winning’ candidate, Angela Eagle. Under the party constitution the selection was null and void; but party officials glossed over this detail. To add insult to injury, the NEC not only dismissed the complaints of party members but threatened to mount yet another ‘investigation’ of the constituency after the general election.

Lol Duffy worked diligently for Angela Eagle during the general election. “I’m not going to go off and sulk just because the NEC has broken every rule in the book to prevent me being a candidate,” he said. Thanks to the years of hard work put in by himself and others in the constituency the seat was taken from the Tories and Eagle became the first Labour MP for Wallasey.

Given this record, it is hardly surprising that Angela Eagle has shown such contempt for the democratic decision made by party members last September, when they elected Jeremy Corbyn as leader with 59.5% of first-preference votes, and has joined his enemies in the parliamentary Labour party in a disgraceful attempt to overturn that decision. She is firmly embedded in, and indeed owes her parliamentary career to, a political culture that accepts party democracy only when it produces the ‘right’ results.

[C0ckney]

meanwhile owen smith (who?) went on the daily politics show last weekend to talk about his candidacy. his answers included this gem.

Smith: I'm demanding a second referendum because so many people have changed their mind about voting leave.

Andrew Neill: Wheres your evidence for that then, Owen.

Smith: It's anecdotal, Andrew.

[kentonio]

Yeah, he should probably have pointed at the petition which raised 4m signatures in just a few weeks. Or at that divvy bloke they interviewed the day after the vote, I'm sure with a little hunting we could find a million more of those.

[C0ckney]

or he could have followed corbyn's and mcdonnell's lead and said that labour will respect the clearly demonstrated desire of the british people...

[Dauphin]

4m? Well that overturns the popular vote in the actual referendum.

[Dauphin]

Or more appropriately, how many of the 4m voted leave and changed their mind.

[C0ckney]

i think it's far more likely that 4 million odd sore losers from the remain side voted in that petition...

[Dauphin]

Quite. Although I'd expect at least the same if the roles were reversed. UKIP would be out in droves talking about how 48% of the people had spoken and should be listened to.

[C0ckney]

no doubt. although i think there would be far fewer elected politicians seriously entertaining the idea of a 2nd vote.

[Dauphin]

no doubt. although i think there would be far fewer elected politicians seriously entertaining the idea of a 2nd vote.

In absolute terms, agree. As a percentage of the camp, I wouldn't. The Remain camp was bigger, so you'll get more examples.