I’ve had a break from the blog over the last few days, so I missed a YouGov poll of Labour members last week which suggested the first cracks in the hitherto solid support for Jeremy Corbyn among Labour members.

Back in May 72% of Labour members thought Corbyn was doing well, 27% badly; 60% wanted him to lead the party into the next election. Now 51% think he’s doing well, 48% badly and only 41% thought he should lead the party into the next election. However, for Labour MPs seeking to unseat him, their success of any leadership election is still questionable. 50% of members say they would probably still vote for Corbyn in a leadership election, 47% that they would probably not, and even that 47% relies upon finding a candidate who all those members unhappy with him could unite behind. Asked how they would vote in head-to-head contests between Corbyn and some potential challengers Corbyn still wins: he is ahead of Tom Watson by 50% to 39%, Angela Eagle by 50% to 40%, Dan Jarvis by 52% to 35%.

These figures are also just for fully paid up party members – an election would also include £3 supporters. Those £3 supporters from the last election would still break heavily for Corbyn, but in the case of an actual leadership election there would obviously be efforts by both sides to recruit new £3 supporters – we cannot tell how successful they’d be.

I can claim no particular insight into the mind of the Parliamentary Labour party, but I suspect one reason that none of Corbyn’s critics has yet triggered a leadership is that (as of last week at least) the polling of Labour party members did not suggest they could be sure of a victory in a leadership contest. Since then, of course, there has been another week of infighting and stand-off, and sooner or later there has to be some sort of resolution…

The tabs for the Labour leadership polling are here.


252 Responses to “Last week’s Labour Leadership Polling”

1 2 3 4 6
  1. @hawthorn

    The Labour rules don’t look ambiguous to me:

    Q What does ‘no vacancy’ mean?
    A A Leader is in place

    Q What does ‘challenger’ mean?
    A A person who is challenging the leader for the position

    Q Who needs to get nominations according to the rules
    A the challenger

    This is why the plotters haven’t simply put up a candidate and denied Corbyn the 51 nominations he needs.

  2. “Where there is no vacancy, nominations may be sought by potential challengers each year”

    Seems pretty clear to me – a challenger needs 20% of the PLP to challenge the current leader and the current leader is automatically on the ballot.

  3. @Pete B

    The old folk in Spain are a terrible drain on the Spanish health service, Spain would be glad to see the back of them. Unfortunately we will have swapped economically active young people for oldies that will put even more strain on our NHS,

  4. Hmm, touchingly naive…

  5. Couper
    Are there different versions of Labour Rules? The link CMJ gave said
    “ii. Where there is no vacancy, nominations shall be sought each year prior to the annual session of party conference. In this case any nomination must be supported by 20 per cent of the Commons members of the PLP. Nominations not attaining this threshold shall be null and void.”

    Whereas you said
    “ii. Where there is no vacancy, nominations may be sought by potential challengers each year prior to the annual session of Party conference. In this case any nomination must be supported by 20 per cent of the combined Commons members of the PLP and members of the EPLP. Nominations not attaining this threshold shall be null and void.”

    Yours is the version that I remembered being quoted before, with its use of the word ‘challengers’. Are there perhaps different versions for England and Scotland, or is one version out of date?

  6. @Pete B

    I thought that too…..

  7. Welsh YG poll

    Labour 34% (-5)
    Conservative 23% (+1)
    Plaid Cymru 16% (+2)
    UKIP 16% (-2)
    Liberal Democrats 8% (+2)
    Others 3% (+1)

    Senedd Constituency

    Labour 32% (-2)
    Plaid Cymru 23% (no change)
    Conservative 19% (+1)
    UKIP 16% (+1)
    Liberal Democrats 7% (no change)
    Others 3% (no change)

    Senedd list

    Labour 29% (-3)
    Plaid Cymru 24% (+3)
    Conservative 18% (no change)
    UKIP 15% (+1)
    Liberal Democrats 6% (no change)
    Others 8% (+10)

    “In short, this poll confirms what we might have suspected from the recent bad torrent of bad news – that the Labour party is in some difficulty. Even in its historic Welsh bastion it is reaching levels of electoral unpopularity not seen since the days of Gordon Brown’s leadership, and hardly ever experienced by a major party when it is in opposition in London. At the same time, such has been Labour’s strength in Wales that even weakened as it currently is it remains well ahead of all the competition. The Conservatives’ recent problems have hardly placed them in a good position to take immediate advantage of Labour’s struggles. And while this poll undoubtedly offers encouragement for Plaid Cymru, they still remain some way short of challenging Labour for first place, even for the National Assembly.”

    http://blogs.cardiff.ac.uk/electionsinwales/2016/07/04/the-new-welsh-political-barometer-poll-3/

  8. @Couper
    It’s ambiguous, which is why lawyers differ and why various LP branches (including my own) have passed motions saying the rules should be amended to make it clear that the current leader should be on the ballot irrespective of nominations.
    The view in my branch, where there is but meagre support for Corbyn, was that it was a no-brainer and clearly the existing leader has o be on the ballot if he/she so chooses, so the motion was passed unanimously.
    That was in April (or March?). I wonder if it would pass now, but I note the neighbouring branch, equally Corbysceptic, has passed an identical motion in the last few days.
    Course, they’re just motions until (at least) they get to the NEC – I don’t understand how rules are changed.

  9. OK, I’ve checked this out. CMJ’s link was dated 2008. I have found a Labour rule book dated 2013 where the wording agrees with Couper’s version, so unless there’s an even more recent version, that seems the one to go for. And it does imply that an incumbent leader will automatically be on the ballot if he wishes to be.

    On the Welsh poll, it looks as though Lab is suffering, but it could be a temporary effect owing to the shambles. UKIP might have been expected to improve as Leave won, but perhaps there’ll be a post-Farage bounce?

  10. JAYBLANC

    According to the Labour Party Rule Book Chapter 4 Clause II 2B:

    Nomination
    i. In the case of a vacancy for leader or
    deputy leader, each nomination must be
    supported by 12.5 per cent of the Commons
    members of the PLP. Nominations not
    attaining this threshold shall be null and
    void.

    ii. Where there is no vacancy, nominations
    may be sought by potential challengers
    each year prior to the annual session of
    party conference. In this case any
    nomination must be supported by 20 per
    cent of the Commons members of the PLP.
    Nominations not attaining this threshold
    shall be null and void.

    (my bold)

    So the existing leader doesn’t need nomination unless they have resigned. Hence the attempt to try to force him to.

    The Kinnock precedent only might matter when there is some ambiguity and the use of ‘challengers’ (not ‘candidates’) is pretty unambiguous – even if the rules are the same as they were in 1988. In the event I suspect that all that happened then was that Kinnock decided to gather signatures to show his backing among MPs and to prevent any of them nominating a third candidate which was more Benn’s intention (he didn’t expect to win):

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_(UK)_leadership_election,_1988

    The Labour Right have been burbling on about this since last Autumn and talking about “consulting lawyers”. But we all know that means is that that the lawyers just laughed in their faces and said “No chance – that’ll be £5000 please”.

  11. Pete B

    “So who do we think is behind the coup?”

    Blairites (aka US state dept).

  12. MrJones
    ROFLMAO!

  13. Pete B

    “UKIP might have been expected to improve as Leave won”

    I think a lot of Ukip voters will think it’s all fixed now and will be up for grabs unless the vote is thwarted.

  14. Also (noted by Plaid) a question in the YG Welsh poll was

    “Would you vote for independence to keep Wales in the EU?”

    Yes 28% : No 53% : DK 20%

    Welsh indy still a long way behind – somewhere around Scottish opinion in 2004/5?

  15. @Pete B

    Yes the rules were changed fairly recently – Ed Miliband I think, anyway I got my info from a parliamentary research briefing 29th June 2016 so it will be correct

    researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN03938/SN03938.pdf

  16. That was cobbled together from two previous replies to JayBlanc – hence to strange start (and a lot has been put up by others since anyway). The only thing to add is that Corbyn would have a good case to go to the Courts if they they tried to prevent him standing and the Courts might feel obliged to intervene as Leader of the Opposition is a paid position.

  17. Mr Jones

    Maybe Ruth Smeeth (if Wikileaks is correct that she was a US informant)

    http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2161932

  18. Couper

    “@Pete B
    The old folk in Spain are a terrible drain on the Spanish health service, Spain would be glad to see the back of them. Unfortunately we will have swapped economically active young people for oldies that will put even more strain on our NHS,”

    The NHS pays for the treatment obtained by uk citizens in Spain, so I do not understand in what way they are a drain.

  19. Pete B: “Spain, whose economy would be in an even worse state if the UK pensioners left.”

    Actually, the common assumption that the Spanish economy is dire isn’t entirely justified. Last year the economy grew by 3.2% and the forecast for this year is 2.7% (it was 0.8% in the first quarter alone).

    Unemployment has just fallen to its lowest level since 2009, with a drop of 124,000 in June following 120,000 in May. It’s still way too high, of course, but it does at least give scope for a long period of sustained growth without running into labour shortages.

    And as I like to point out to sometimes disbelieving Brits, Spain actually produces considerably more cars than Britain with output growing faster, thanks to faster inward investment.

  20. Anthony I don’t know if you caught my comments on the previous thread about the possible limitations of this YouGov poll of Labour members. I suspect it may be a little out of date with its sample as 93% of those in the sample voted in last September’s leadership election according to the cross heads.

    This implies that YouGov are using records of who was a member then and may not have asked those who joined more recently. These are more likely to be pro-Corbyn. Indeed I have seen figures suggesting that 60,000 have joined in the last week. Most of these seem to have done so to support him (though there may also be some opponents (re)joining. YouGov are unlikely to have the details of these as members on record yet and so they will be under-represented in the sample.

    The poll possibly have also not allowed for those who were paid supporters but since joined as full members and there are also the affiliates (mainly union members). Both these groups in the past have been more pro-Corbyn.

  21. On the subject of strange datasets, the tables for that poll on Unite members have now been released:

    https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/uzp6kkk5kn/ElectionDataResults_160701_UniteMembers.pdf

    and they’re a bit odd. The poll wasn’t actually commissioned for Unite, as I assumed (though they’ve just done one for them on Nursing). It’s actually attributed to ‘Election Data Survey”, which actually linked to a website run by Ian Warren (election-data.co.uk) which is mainly concerned with attacking Corbyn and those associated with him.

    Unite themselves are not happy and wrote to the Guardian (who naturally had been making much of the poll) complaining about the coverage, to which YouGov’s Stephan Shakespeare has recently responded:

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/04/yougov-stands-firm-against-unite-leaders-criticism-of-jeremy-corbyn-poll

    though it doesn’t really answer why they didn’t ask Unite for their demographics (especially as they were already working with them). And the demographics look very odd. The table comes with a warning:

    This data is unweighted and therefore may not be fully representative of Unite members.
    Respondents are all members of the YouGov’s online panel and have told us they are members of the Unite union.
    The poll is unweighted as there is no available information on the demographics of Unite’s members. The gender breakdown is in line with Unite’s latest submission to the Trade Union Certifications.
    Officer.

    which might have been better included in the Guardian’s coverage. Two things stand out – firstly the obvious, but unsaid one that many Unite members are not Labour voters; and there was no attempt to find out if members paid the political levy or not and so could vote in a leadership contest. The second is that the sample looks extremely old, with 47% being over 55 and only 27% under. How old the other 199 (26%) were I have no idea – even though YouGov should have their panellists birthdates on file.

  22. @ Roger Mexico
    Yes, I think that likely distorts the poll and my gut feeling is that JC will still have a decent majority. Having said that, a few of my comrades who voted for him last time would not do so again, but I only really see those who campaign of whom only a very few are Corbynistas.

  23. I may have said this before, but the most important rule on the Labour leadership election is the one saying that the NEC can change the rules.

    One obvious and justifiable change to the rules would be to amend to say something like “where there is a vacancy or the Leader has lost a vote of no confidence from the PLP…”

    Also justifiable would be to reverse the idiotic inclusion of £3 “supporters” on the ballot.

    That rule also means that the NEC gets the final say on any legal interpretation, since they can simply amend the rules to fit whatever decision is seen to be appropriate.

  24. @Robin

    Isn’t the NEC pro:Corbyn? Didn’t a left wing slate get elected last time?

  25. OLDNAT

    Also (noted by Plaid) a question in the YG Welsh poll was
    “Would you vote for independence to keep Wales in the EU?”
    Yes 28% : No 53% : DK 20%

    But even that is over 10 points higher than any previous polling:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_independence

  26. @Couper2802

    My understanding is that it is very tight, possibly marginally anti.

  27. ‘Also justifiable would be to reverse the idiotic inclusion of £3 “supporters” on the ballot.’

    Hush… that was particularly applauded by the Blairites and Tony Blair himself. In fact, they bullied Ed Miliband into changing the rules to OMOV in order to reduce the influence of the Unions.

    Re: Whether Corbyn would require 51 nominations or not.

    I understand that the final ruling will be made by the NEC and that the courts are unlikely to accept a challenge because the LP is considered to be a private club.

    This makes sense of the actions taken to remove or prevent left wingers being elected to the NEC. Ken Livingstone has been suspended because of a dubious charge of anti-semitism (a charge of idiocy at walking into an obvious trap would have been more appropriate). After an intervention by Jim Murphy, Rhea Wolfson failed to be nominated by her CLP on the grounds that it would upset the Jewish community, in spite of Rhea herself being of Jewish heritage. Now, Ken Livingstone’s replacement on the NEC, Darren Williams faces a dubious disciplinary charge, within days of being elected.

    http://www.leftfutures.org/2016/07/leftwinger-threatened-with-disciplinary-action-immediately-on-joining-labour-executive/

    Is it a coincidence that a left-wing member of the executive is being targeted at a time when the body may have to adjudicate on whether Jeremy Corbyn is allowed on the ballot paper automatically in the event of a leadership challenge?

    I think that these are really worrying developments which should have no place in a democratic organisation.

  28. Robin

    I agree with the rule changes you propose, but how’s that going to look in the middle of this shambles?

    After this mess has been cleaned up there will have to be rule changes, the ones you suggested and also something to make it easier for non conformist MPs to stand for leadership, either a reduction of the number of nominating MPs or expanding the nominating electorate in some way.

    I think also the conservative rule about having to be a member for 3 months should be implemented. There also needs to be a though look at groups organising within the Labour party, ones that are funded in a significant degree from outside sources or by large donors should be banned.

    We also unfortunately need some party disciple, we need to move away from the blair/brown model of briefing against colleagues. Resignations on a point of principle are well and good but when they are orchestrated to cause maximum damage and subvert the wishes of the membership there needs to be consequences. In parliament the removal of the whip is possible, what local parties want to do is a matter for them but the procedure should be transparent, Democratic and consistent.

  29. ROBIN

    I may have said this before, but the most important rule on the Labour leadership election is the one saying that the NEC can change the rules.

    You have said it before and you were wrong. The NEC can change the rules but they can’t change the Constitution and what I quoted came from that part of the rulebook. Otherwise the NEC could just appoint whoever they wanted as Leader for Life and change the rules to prevent them being overthrown.

    I’m not sure about the £3 supporters, but that is clearly less important if many are becoming full members.

  30. Roger Mexico

    Thanks. I should have thought to check back on previous YG polling on it!

    The headings on that wiki page are interesting – “In favour of independence” : “Opposed to independence” : “Indifferent/No Reply”.

    Assuming that this (very specific EU related question) can be tallied with those – and there are presumably Plaid voters who are anti-EU, so the comparison isn’t directly valid – we have :

    10% : 62% : 28% : Mar 2013
    16% : 62% : 22% : Apr 2014
    17% : 70% : 13% : Sep 2014
    28% : 53% : 20% : Jul 2016

    And if Wales beat Portugal, and then win the final ……

  31. Roger Mexico

    Many of the £3 corbyn supporters became full members, believing that it was unlikely that supporters would have a vote in future elections. Momentum encouraged that, but then momentum is very keen to expand labour membership

  32. Frustrating not to be able to see the Welsh poll tables yet, but Plaid Press Officer saying “poll also shows (slim) majority of Labour supporters also backing Welsh indy in Europe if rest of UK left the EU.”

  33. @Roger Mexico

    Labour Party Constitution
    Chapter 4 Clause 2 – Procedural rules for elections for
    national officers of the party [inc. leader]

    1. General
    A. The following procedures provide a rules
    framework which, unless varied by the consent
    of the NEC, shall be followed when conducting
    elections for party officers. The NEC will also
    issue procedural guidelines on nominations,
    timetable, codes of conduct for candidates and
    other matters relating to the conduct of these
    elections.

  34. Labour’s real problem here is less one of politics than sociology. Corbyn is not acceptable to the Party establishment, mainly because he is not one of them. So they will hope to continue to plot, aided by their friends in the media, until they get their way. Then they’ll plot against his replacement, because that is what they do – look at the treatment even someone as much of an insider as Miliband got.

    Unfortunately these people see politics not as a means, but as an end in itself. They want to be professional politicians as a career, but not to change the world. Corbyn is seen as a threat because they see him as threatening the system, though I don’t think he’s done as much as he might. I suspect they are moving so fanatically now, with no thought of the Party or country, because they think he will consolidate his control on the Party structure this autumn. This is actually of greater concern to them than whether they win an election.

    Modern politics tends to reward energy and compliance and be suspicious of independent thought. Captured in the Westminster Bubble, with little experience of the outside world, they only really know how to got through the conventional motions and have little concept of how actions have consequences. If things don’t happen as they ‘ought to’ then they can’t cope – they simply couldn’t get their head round Corbyn not resigning for example.

    It wouldn’t matter if these people were the geniuses they think themselves to be, directing Labour to inevitable victory and then ruling the country with wisdom and skill. But of course they’re pretty much useless. All they can do is provide ammunition to the media to help damage their own side.

    In the end there has to be a clear-out. Though I actually think most of the MPs who voted for the no confidence motion actually did so because they hoped it would end things rather than because they thought Corbyn had to go. I suspect that many may have changed their minds over the weekend not just because of pressure from members but because they have got away from the hothouse of Westminster.

    But there will some in the PLP who really have to go. In the end Corbyn’s policy of giving them enough rope will work in many cases (he’s basically the first Zen leader of Labour since Attlee) and a few deselections may do the rest.

  35. The proportion of businesses pessimistic about the outlook has practically doubled in little over a week, according to Newsnight based on a YouGov/CEBRpoll – 25% pre ref, 49% now.
    Standard Life has suspended redemptions on one of their commercial real estate funds.
    Project Fear may have been understated.

  36. @CR

    Agree it’s tricky under current circumstances, but they are going to have to make a decision on the nominations issue anyway.

    Also agree about the need for a qualification period for membership. It used to be 12 months, which no-one had any complaint about.

  37. @ CambridgeRachel

    ‘Up until this week it was weakening corbyn, i could feel my own resolve slipping away. Now its just silly and all i can do is laugh at the ineptitude of the PLP, they can’t even put away a frail old man!’

    Exactly and I also agree with the proposition that once people start laughing the coup is dead in the water.

    Laszlo is also IMO correct. If the 176 do adopt the Joe Haines plan to become a ‘party within a party’ and petition Bercow to be the official opposition, what then?

    ‘The idea is for the PLP to elect a new leader, create its own shadow cabinet and effectively begin operating as a distinct Labour Party totally separate from Mr Corbyn. ‘

    “The position is to stop the Labour Party collapsing at the next election. That is the only goal. The EU referendum was a game-changer,” one MP told The Telegraph. ‘

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/26/labour-rebels-plan-party-within-a-party/

    Are they really so deluded as to think that such a move would stop the LP collapsing at the next election? Do they think that their constituents are going to happily accept such a UDI? And it will be the PLP rebels who will have destroyed the LP not Jeremy Corbyn. Their position is totally untenable.

  38. Robin

    I think the key word there is ‘varied’. The NEC can alter things in response to changing circumstances. What they can’t do is ignore the very clear meaning of the Constitution. This would be seen as going beyond their powers and liable to legal challenge.

    The Courts can and do intervene when ‘private clubs’ are involved if controlling bodies are misbehaving. And while they would hate to rule over political Parties, in this case not interfering would also be seen as political bias, so they would be forced to act on the side of natural justice.

  39. @Guymonde

    Lets hope Labour can get its act together and provide an effective opposition when that happens. Sadly Roger Mexico’s analysis is spot on – they have done nothing since the last election other than undermine their leader – and Miliband definitely suffered the same fate to a lesser extent.

    I agree with him a cleanout is well overdue. Stop fighting each other and come up with some policies. If not Labour then hopefully the LD’s emerge from the ashes.

    I saw somewhere that 6% of our population are EU nationals. And discussions in the office today revealed a very deep disgust for what is happening to them and the politicians that are talking about them as if they don’t matter.

    If they end up staying and becoming British citizens, that is 5% for whoever wants to oppose the current government, locked in vote like the democrats have in the US. Anyone listening? Or is everyone just fighting to become the next leader and undermine the leader they don’t want?

  40. I think that corbyn will stand down, probably some time next year. But first he will want to make sure that theres a reasonable chance that his successor shares his general philosophy, that means some rule changes. Also he will be looking to groom possible successors and there the PLP and their resignations may have helped him, the influx of new people into the shadow cabinet is a massive opportunity. Im particularly interested in the new shadow defence minister clive lewis

  41. We don’t have the tables for the Conservative members poll as yet, but Sam Coates at the Times has been tweeting some of the choicer gobbets:

    https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/750077963551604736

    YouGov Tory members poll. Behold utter destruction of Gove’s reputation – in under a week, from +41 to -20

    This is the tracker question Generally speaking, do you have a positive or negative opinion of the following people?. It had already dropped since February’s +56 to +41 last week (27-29 Jun) now it has clearly gone in freefall with only 32% saying positive and 52% negative (30% very neg).

    Tories are a loyal lot, it’s normally quite difficult to get them to be nasty about one of their leaders. In the last poll, the only negative ratings (just) were Nicky Morgan (-4) and Jeremy Hunt (-1). So -20 takes some doing – maybe that love of loyalty means they dislike backstabbers. That last poll also showed a very sharp fall in Boris’s ratings (+62 to +28). It’ll be interesting to see what they are now.

  42. I don’t have any axe to grind in this Labour civil war – except that the effect in Scotland is likely to be the continued decline of SLab, regardless of who wins – with their existing activists/voters splintering off to all the other parties, according to their own predilections.

    In Scots the word “coup” (pronounced as it is spelled) means a rubbish dump and it seems particularly appropriate for the situation that English Labour has created for itself.

    As so often, Roger Mexico seems to have the right of it. This isn’t about political direction or principle. It’s the extension of petty student politics into the adult world, by people who have never joined that world.

    The work of lots of good Labour MPs, genuinely committed to doing the best for their communities, is going to end up scrapped, because of silly games being plotted in London wine bars.

  43. Not sure if already posted – the PR company at the heart of the coup

    http://www.thecanary.co/2016/06/30/pr-company-manufactured-labour-coup-part-i/

  44. Mr Jones

    Portland have been mentioned in that context, though I don’t think the link to Canary’s story has been posted.

  45. RICHARD

    I saw somewhere that 6% of our population are EU nationals. And discussions in the office today revealed a very deep disgust for what is happening to them and the politicians that are talking about them as if they don’t matter.

    According to the latest ONS figures (for 2014):

    http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/articles/populationbycountryofbirthandnationalityreport/2015-09-27

    It was a bit less at just under 3 million (4.6%). Though at 2014’s rate of increase another 560,000 or so could have arrived in the last 18 months, so it could be 5.5% by now. That includes the Irish of course, though their numbers have actually been declining[1].

    Disproportionately many are in London (about 35%) which means that politicians, the media and others there are more likely to know someone in such a situation. But it must be fairly common elsewhere too. This may explain the reaction to the refusal to confirm the right to remain today.

    [1] Because so many came over in 1940s – 60s, have lived their lives in the UK and are now passing away in their 70s and 80s, never having bothered to acquire (or need) a British passport.

  46. Chris Evans has resigned from Top Gear.

    Dunno the procedures for electing a successor, or if Jezza will make it onto the ballot…

  47. OLDNAT

    I don’t have any axe to grind in this Labour civil war

    Well we’d hate for you to fel left out, so here YouGov’s latest tracker – on exactly how Scottish / British Andy Murray is considered, correlated with his world tennis ranking:

    https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/3qgpbhsiyn/Pol-Trackers-Andy-Murray-040716.pdf

  48. Mr Jones oldnat

    Ive seen that story, I’ve got the Canary on my Facebook feed. I find them annoying , they seem so tabloid but for some reason I keep them on my feed. I did consider posting that link when someone mentioned portland the other day. But although the facts are probably correct and the assumptions are kind of reasonable I just don’t think its good journalism. Theres no balance, theres a feeling that they are finding exactly what there were expecting to find and not looking for evidence that disproves their assumptions. In short it looks and feels very much like a junk conspiracy theory.

    Having said all that, while I wouldn’t inflict it on other people I’m quite prepared to swallow it whole myself. I think that its mostly true, but prehaps because I want it to be! Why do I have to be so cynical?

  49. @Roger Mexico

    ‘The Courts can and do intervene when ‘private clubs’ are involved if controlling bodies are misbehaving. And while they would hate to rule over political Parties, in this case not interfering would also be seen as political bias, so they would be forced to act on the side of natural justice.’

    Good news – thanks.

  50. @ Mr Jones and CR

    I don’t know if it’s relevant but Alistair Campbell offered a blistering condemnation of Jeremy Corbyn on 30th June, sitting in front of a backdrop entitled ‘Portland Communications’.

1 2 3 4 6