Yet many on this board have already said they found the speech inspiring and, quite possibly - even likely, many members of the public will have the same opinion (time, not you, will tell.) The fact is not everyone sees things the way you do.

With regard to the media, I am less sure than you that his attack will prove counter-productive. The public has tired of the dictats of the self-elected commentariat so let's see if the media continue to hold the sway and influence they have in the recent past. The timing of his attack on a bloated, convicted and dishonest media may prove impeccable.

This was a party convention and there was no intent to announce policies. You may disagree with using that platform for broader purposes but it is hardly sensible for criticising the absence of something that was never intended to be present.

Again, let's wait and see. I think you would agree that Thatcher caused a sea change in the direction of British politics. A few years before her election, her manifesto would have provoked the same sort of ridicule that you give Corbyn's. Has it ever occurred to you that times change and appetites evolve and Corbyn may just be representing something people do warm to in the same way Thatcher did years ago? Hers was an earthquake to the right. Perhaps Corbyn will give us a corrective earthquake to the left. Of course, that might not be the case but to dismiss the possibility of a shift of the kind you have already witnessed in your lifetime out of hand, simply because you personally dislike its direction and as if you know the result of the next election years in advance, is not a very substantive criticism of someone whose beliefs you dislike.

If we were talking about the Labour Party of 1989 I might agree with you. But we're not. It may be that Labour voters today have finally got a leader they can rally around, but you refuse to see it. Some of us think his approach and beliefs are good for the country. And some of us are just independent-minded enough to consider possibilities beyond our own narrow prejudices.

Sydenham by birth. Selhurst by the Grace of God.

There hasn't been a bearded Prime Minister for well over a hundred years now so I'd say the odds of him reaching the top of the greasy pole are somewhat against him.

As you well know, that's not a valid argument.

Sydenham by birth. Selhurst by the Grace of God.

For that to be true you would have to be able to demonstrate that voters have had a choice and, since Thatcher, we have not had a candidate with facial hair.

Sydenham by birth. Selhurst by the Grace of God.

It's a lot longer than that, old chap. And I wasn't aware that the Blessed Margaret had facial hair anyway.....

I'm talking beards, man.