I know that I'm picking on an easy target when I say that the Telegraph are often pretty clueless, but their treatment of the Labour leadership contest has been woeful even by their standards. For weeks now, they've been adding little pre-prepared inserts to their online articles, describing Jeremy Corbyn as "the bookies' favourite to finish fourth" (even though for much of that time he has either been second-favourite or outright favourite to win), and Liz Kendall's chances of winning as "improving" (even though her campaign has been a dead duck for ages). I see today that they've finally updated the inserts to declare Corbyn the favourite - which is rather unfortunate timing, because Andy Burnham was re-established as the clear favourite earlier this week!
They also make this weird comment -
"Under the old Labour electoral college that elected Ed Miliband, union-backed Jeremy Corbyn would be a shoo-in. But rules brought in last year limited the unions' power by eliminating the college and giving a single vote to each party member."
Utter tripe. Any radical left-wing leadership candidate would have been hammered under the electoral college, regardless of any support from the unions, because the parliamentary party had one-third of the vote. Each MP's vote was effectively worth several hundred times that of a rank-and-file party member or trade unionist. Corbyn may or may not win under the new system, but there's no doubt that it gives him a much better chance.