My "mate Dave" works for the Labour Party and nationally and locally the number of people canvassing for the party has absolutely plummeted since the last election despite the membership doubling.

Has it anything to do with the fact that there are no elections on the horizon?

The inherent absurdity of this line of argument for me is that it implies that Ed Miliband was "Tory lite" (and so were all other options besides Corbyn). There's a world of difference between full blown Blairites and centre left politicians like Brown, Miliband, Cooper, Burnham and so on. The whole reason Labour politicians divided into Blairite/Brownite camps was this political difference.

As has been pointed out, these people (a couple of hundred thousand members) also aren't representative of the public. If what Labour members voted for correlated with what the general public (or even just voters sympathetic to Labour wanted), there would be some sort of boost in the polls. Yet after two of the most unpopular leaders in decades (Brown & Miliband), Corbyn still hasn't attracted additional/returning support.

The inherent absurdity of this line of argument for me is that it implies that Ed Miliband was "Tory lite" (and so were all other options besides Corbyn). There's a world of difference between full blown Blairites and centre left politicians like Brown, Miliband, Cooper, Burnham and so on. The whole reason Labour politicians divided into Blairite/Brownite camps was this political difference.

As has been pointed out, these people (a couple of hundred thousand members) also aren't representative of the public. If what Labour members voted for correlated with what the general public (or even just voters sympathetic to Labour wanted), there would be some sort of boost in the polls. Yet after two of the most unpopular leaders in decades (Brown & Miliband), Corbyn still hasn't attracted additional/returning support.

If Corbyn is so unelectable, why has Cameron refused a yearly leaders debate? Why would Cameron not relish the idea, winning argument after argument against such a feeble opponent?

If Corbyn is so unelectable, why do the media keep bandying about emotive phrases such as 'trotskyite'?

If the election in 2020 is going to be such an easy landslide victory for the Tories, why are they hell-bent on changing electoral rules to benefit themselves? Is there really any need to go to so much trouble to reduce the number of non-Tory supporters eligible to vote, by rushing through individual electoral registration? What are the Tories frightened of? Indeed, there can be no need to change constituency boundaries in their favour when they face no real opposition, or to cut short money going to opposition parties. No need for precautions like these when they’re only up against an “unelectable” Labour Party.

If Corbyn is so unelectable, why has Cameron refused a yearly leaders debate? Why would Cameron not relish the idea, winning argument after argument against such a feeble opponent?

If Corbyn is so unelectable, why do the media keep bandying about emotive phrases such as 'trotskyite'?

If the election in 2020 is going to be such an easy landslide victory for the Tories, why are they hell-bent on changing electoral rules to benefit themselves? Is there really any need to go to so much trouble to reduce the number of non-Tory supporters eligible to vote, by rushing through individual electoral registration? What are the Tories frightened of? Indeed, there can be no need to change constituency boundaries in their favour when they face no real opposition, or to cut short money going to opposition parties. No need for precautions like these when they’re only up against an “unelectable” Labour Party.

Didn't realise two people have given nearly the exact same answer as me above. If we're going to secretly concoct establishment lines-to-take, can we at least phrase them slightly differently please lads?

He already relishes that opportunity on a weekly basis. On Wednesday he was being asked about serious flooding and was pissing about making feeble Shakespeare jokes. The only people who lose in leaders' debates are the incumbent, because what it does is invites people to imagine what someone would be like as a leader.

The reason Cameron doesn't want debates with Corbyn is the same reason he didn't want them with Miliband. Because his own leadership ratings are actually pretty good for a PM going into his second term and Corbyn's personal ratings are absolutely dire. Why risk changing that? His 'fear' of Miliband obviously turned out to be completely unfounded.

Because it's the most interesting thing about him. Most people can't remember a more left-wing Labour leader for at least 30 years. He may be the most left-wing MP out of 232 MPs. To not remark upon how polarising a figure he is would be rather odd.

Do you honestly think that the Tories wouldn't have done all of the above if Burnham was leader? They changed electoral registration when Miliband was leader. They tried to do the boundaries when Miliband was leader. They've always opposed Short money when in power. They'll do anything they can to give themselves an advantage, because one day the public will stop voting for them.

My worry is that when eventually they do lose support, Labour will be so catastrophically inept that they won't be able to take advantage.

Nick.... if The White Horse is suggesting Labour are fcuked with Corbyn at the helm, you can pretty well be sure that is the case.

You seem to think there is a political eureka moment going on with Corbyn but there isn't.

How many times do we have to point out to you that Corbyn's support is about 200,000 Labour members.

He needs to convince millions of Labour VOTERS.

His performance so far is to scare a lot of voters away by his appearance, policies and dangerous position on Trident missiles.

This week has probably put a load more off as he made a pig's ear of a cabinet reshuffle.