Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
UK LABOUR LEADER Jeremy Corbyn has been a divisive figure in the UK. On the one hand, you have crowds of people chanting his name at festivals and clubs, and on the other you have deep misgivings from within his party that he’s the person to lead them to electoral victory.
Of those two sides of the scale, most of the British media have been siding with Corbyn’s critics – and that’s putting it mildly.
One edition of the Sun, published on the day of the UK’s snap election, had the headline “Don’t chuck Britain in the Cor-bin” accompanied by a picture of the Labour leader in a metal bin (subtle).
Riding on the high of a significant increase in the UK’s June election, and subsequent popularity ratings, Corbyn has taken the opportunity to hit back at his critics in the media.
“The day before the election, one paper devoted 14 pages to attacking the Labour Party,” Corbyn told the Labour conference in Brighton today.
And our vote went up nearly 10%. Never have so many trees died in vain. The British people saw right through it.
And he didn’t stop there.
So this is a message to the Daily Mail’s editor [Paul Dacre]: Next time, please could you make it 28 pages?
Buzzfeed UK’s political editor Jim Waterson said that Corbyn’s attack was a significant change in the relationship between politicians and the media.
It’s definitely *a sign media power has shifted* that a political leader feels able to use their conference speech to tell the editor of the UK’s second most popular newspaper to piss off without worrying about the consequences.
As Britain’s main opposition party, Labour has had some trouble with building itself up in the polls, despite a series of government scandals and flops (not dissimilar to our own Labour party).
But Corbyn assured crowds today that the party was “now the political mainstream” and “ready for government” – boldly stating that Labour was “on the threshold of power”.
“We’ve become a government in waiting,” he said, adding that Labour were “ready to build a new and progressive relationship with Europe”.
Corbyn has met with significant resistence from Labour MPs over his attempts to move the party to the left since being elected leader in September 2015.
But he defied expectations by winning 30 more seats in June on a manifesto promising nationalisations and a huge increase in public spending.
Now, Corbyn is more confident, telling delegates today:
A new consensus is emerging from the great economic crash and the years of austerity, when people started to find a political voice for their hopes, for something different and better.
This is the real centre of gravity of British politics. We are now the political mainstream.
Corbyn said May’s Conservatives, who are riven by infighting over the government’s strategy on Brexit, were “hanging on by their fingertips”.
The elephant in the room
But Labour is also divided over Brexit, particularly over whether Britain should continue to have access to the European single market after it leaves the EU and continue to accept free movement of people.
Corbyn offered no details on Labour’s position on Brexit in the speech and instead attacked Conservatives for “bungling” Brexit negotiations.
A YouGov poll for The Times published today showed Labour on 43% compared to the Conservatives on 39%.
But the poll of 1,716 people conducted last week showed trust in May as a leader was at 37% compared to 29% for Corbyn.
- With reporting from Gráinne Ní Aodha
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
having read this article and in particular the final paragraph i think the heading is misleading and should be changed.
The use of statistical language here is also sensationalising the subject. While the probability may be 8 times larger, if the probability of a young man passing mutations is 1/10,000 and the probability of elderly man passing them on is 8/10,000 it is still a rare event.
Need more info to realise the true meaning of these “stats”
Heard another one yesterday saying older mothers made better…whatever actually can’t remember…there’s much crap ‘surveys’ our there, parents please ignore, make you afraid to have kids!!!
older mothers were more likely to have kids with better speech and less accident’s because the kids are more precious 2 them. wat bullshit like who’s kids aren’t precious 2them? I’m 21 and my 2 halfyear old son has brilliant speech and can hold a conversation. a 45year old I know has a child the same age and he’s had stitches in his head a dislocated wrist and I can never understand a word he’s saying… js sayin.
Eire if your child’s speech is on a par with your text speak rant you may have to reconsider his intellectual prowess
Charlie Murphy. seriously? fool
Mutations are the reason the human race has survived. Harmful mutations generally disappear in a population. The rest imbed the ability to adapt to changing environmental stress. Look at sickle-cell syndrome in Africans which helps resist malaria.
The potential for autism and bipolar is being hugely exaggerated by this research.
have your say