The so called political experts that have recently been questioning Jeremy Corbyn should have been taught some manners when they were younger. Both Jeremy Paxman and Robert Peston couldn’t hide their dislike of Corbyn, however, the issue shouldn’t be about who they like, it’s about doing a fair and professional job that informs the viewer. Every BBC interview has been openly aggressive and tried to link Corbyn to terrorism or insinuate that he is soft on terrorism.
First of all Corbyn is accused of being a friend of the IRA, when in actual fact he simply accepted the situation and acknowledged that dialogue had to be attempted, even with people you might consider reprehensible. Then he is portrayed as a coward who hasn’t got the nerve to fire a nuclear weapons device (as if the ability to kill millions of people was an attribute!)
Emma Barnett is the latest BBC presenter to claim victory over Corbyn. He couldn’t remember what a certain figure to cost a manifesto pledge was and she harangued him when he tried to find out on his personal device. If she really wanted to know, she need only look at the Labour Party manifesto.
Apparently, she has been in Skegness to interview the UKIP candidate for the region, Paul Nuttall but he has withdrawn. Barnetts sycophantic twitter followers are claiming he is running scared, completely ignoring the picture on her twitter feed of Theresa May that proves she is not going to treat every interviewee equally. The BBC are so arrogant they don’t even try to look impartial.
Meanwhile, the very same interviewers are giving the sputtering Theresa May an easy ride and not mentioning her catastrophic tenure as Home Secretary. After polls giving May a 20% lead over Corbyn, her campaign has gone into freefall. The confidence that the British public had in her has fallen away alarmingly. On the other hand, Corbyn seems to have endeared himself to the electorate with his calmness, especially in the face of such combative interviewing .
The media assault on Corbyn doesn’t appear to have had the effect they had hoped. The public is slowly getting wise to the fact that tv and newspaper reports need to be questioned. Facebook appears to be vital in the search for truth. The speed in which users spread the word to their friends when they find out an inconvenient truth is scary for authorities.
Corbyns integrity cannot be questioned. His many years in Parliament stand testimony to his continual fight for human rights causes and he has been vehemently anti war. His voting record is there for all to see.
Consistently voted against the Iraq war
0 votes for, 6 votes against, between 2002–2003
Generally voted for investigations into the Iraq war
10 votes for, 1 vote against, 4 absences, between 2003–2016
Generally voted against replacing Trident with a new nuclear weapons system
0 votes for, 4 votes against, 3 absences, between 2007–2016
Here are some of Theresa May’s voting habits:
Consistently voted for the Iraq war
5 votes for, 0 votes against, 1 absence, between 2002–2003
Almost always voted for replacing Trident with a new nuclear weapons system
6 votes for, 0 votes against, 1 absence, between 2007–2016
Generally voted for reducing housing benefit for social tenants deemed to have excess bedrooms (which Labour describe as the “bedroom tax”)
10 votes for, 0 votes against, 7 absences, between 2012–2014
Generally voted for a reduction in spending on welfare benefits
36 votes for, 0 votes against, 18 absences, between 2012–2016
Is this the fairness in society that Theresa May claims to represent? Ignoring a huge anti war protest in London, reducing welfare and punishing people with a spare bedroom or two? The kind of choice we have between May and Corbyn is something that voters have not had for decades. There is a real difference in policies. Corbyn will reduce military interference in other countries and will instead attempt conciliation using diplomacy. He will reduce the effects of austerity, the main victims being the poorest. He will try to stop companies avoiding their tax liabilities. He will increase the tax burden for the very wealthiest.