Why can't Corbyn connect with public?

[MCel58]

I'm sorry but that is just wishful thinking. The public really aren't that stupid that the papers (which only a few read these days anyway) can greatly influence anything.

Here is a list of the national papers, ranked by circulation.

Rounding up and totting up, and assuming that no-one reads two different papers in a day, and the total of papers in circulation in a day is about 8.7 million. There are 45.3 million registered voters in the UK.

So fewer than one in 5 voters reads a paper. Therefore anyone who thinks that Labour would be 20 points better off if the papers were all favourable to Labour can't do maths.

I don't read a physical newspaper but I get delivered to my email box each day 4 UK papers the guardian, the times and the ft, and the Herald. I also get politico, the Washington times, the Irish times and Bloomberg and I am sure that in these days of multi platform news I am not the only one. We are all influenced by the media and not only by newspapers and news programmes but by TV programmes, film and radio.

 

[funk de fino]

It is very telling that despite how rank rotten Corbyn is being portrayed we see May running from any televised debates with him or the others.

So she is either scared of him or scared of her party's record.

A pretty dismal reflection on the state of the politicians we have in the UK

 

[MikeG]

.....Get your head out of the chip paper....

Aimed at me? I don't eat chips, and I don't read any newspapers.

 

[Seismosaurus]

It is very telling that despite how rank rotten Corbyn is being portrayed we see May running from any televised debates with him or the others.

He could have made serious hay out of that issue. Instead he announced that if she didn't want to be in the debates, he won't be in them either. You don't greet the mistakes of your enemies by adopting them yourself!

Well, you do if you're Corbyn.

 

[Agatha]

He could have made serious hay out of that issue. Instead he announced that if she didn't want to be in the debates, he won't be in them either. You don't greet the mistakes of your enemies by adopting them yourself!

Well, you do if you're Corbyn.

So much this. It's like he had an open goal at 5 yards, but instead of scoring he picked up the ball and gave it to the crowd outside the stadium.

MikeG: you don't eat chips? I weep for your lack of fried potato products.

Yesterday I had an election communication from my (Labour) MP which was so anodyne in nature that I wonder if she's resigned herself to losing already.

 

[Seismosaurus]

Here's a "Where Corbyn Went Wrong" article that sums up a lot of why I dislike him.

Most especially on defence matters. Saying you wouldn't use nuclear weapons under any circumstances, as the head of a country that operates a nuclear deterrent, is criminally irresponsible and extraordinarily foolish.

Saying that the UK needs to have talks with Argentina about the Falklands... well it isn't treason, but it's certainly ambling a few steps in the direction of treason and giving it a friendly wave and a cheery smile.

 

[MikeG]

......MikeG: you don't eat chips? I weep for your lack of fried potato products.........

Two or 3 times a year, maybe. We do saute potatoes quite often, and a roasted version of saute potatoes if the oven is on: potatoes fresh from the garden, herbs, pepper, and some Cayenne pepper in the oil. Crispy on the outside, soft inside.............who'd have soggy bland chips instead of that?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Here's a "Where Corbyn Went Wrong" article that sums up a lot of why I dislike him.

Most especially on defence matters. Saying you wouldn't use nuclear weapons under any circumstances, as the head of a country that operates a nuclear deterrent, is criminally irresponsible and extraordinarily foolish.

Saying that the UK needs to have talks with Argentina about the Falklands... well it isn't treason, but it's certainly ambling a few steps in the direction of treason and giving it a friendly wave and a cheery smile.

And there you see the effect of media. Where two non issues are considered important to the exclusion of others that will actually affect your daily standard of living.

Never mind that we are destroying the NHS , Corbyn wouldn't retailiate if we were nuked by Russia.

Classic right wing propaganda tactics fallen for hook line and sinker by those conditioned by the right wing press to accept it

 

[Craig B]

And there you see the effect of media. Where two non issues are considered important to the exclusion of others that will actually affect your daily standard of living.

Never mind that we are destroying the NHS , Corbyn wouldn't retailiate if we were nuked by Russia.

Classic right wing propaganda tactics fallen for hook line and sinker by those conditioned by the right wing press to accept it

However at least he's not a traitor; so let's be thankful for that. He's merely a good friend of treason, which isn't so bad, I suppose.

Saying that the UK needs to have talks with Argentina about the Falklands... well it isn't treason, but it's certainly ambling a few steps in the direction of treason and giving it a friendly wave and a cheery smile.

 

[Seismosaurus]

And there you see the effect of media. Where two non issues are considered important to the exclusion of others that will actually affect your daily standard of living.

Yeah, the thing is that you're mistaken. I didn't cite about those things because of the media. I cited those things because those are the issues I care about most.

Never mind that we are destroying the NHS , Corbyn wouldn't retailiate if we were nuked by Russia.

Yes. Exactly. To my mind, the latter is a FAR greater issue than the former.

Classic right wing propaganda tactics fallen for hook line and sinker by those conditioned by the right wing press to accept it

Because that's the only reason anybody could possibly have different priorities than you do, right? If they've been fooled into it? Because you have the One True Way of thinking, and honest dissent from your way is impossible.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Yeah, the thing is that you're mistaken. I didn't cite about those things because of the media. I cited those things because those are the issues I care about most.


Yes. Exactly. To my mind, the latter is a FAR greater issue than the former.


Because that's the only reason anybody could possibly have different priorities than you do, right? If they've been fooled into it? Because you have the One True Way of thinking, and honest dissent from your way is impossible.

Let's take you at your word then. Can you explain to me why you think Corbyn not wanting to nuke someone is more important than ANYTHING else? Don't refer to anything you sourced from the media in your answer for bonus points.

Because I think I smell *****.

 

[baron]

Let's take you at your word then. Can you explain to me why you think Corbyn not wanting to nuke someone is more important than ANYTHING else?

Is that how you think a deterrent works? How quaint.

A deterrent works if and only if the potential aggressor believes you would use it. A national leader who announces in advance that he will never use nukes has not only removed at a stroke his country's key line of defence, but has removed the only line of defence that does not result in human deaths.

That's kind of important if you're in charge of a country.

 

[MikeG]

........That's kind of important if you're in charge of a country.

Luckily, that is one experiment which will never be done.

 

[Craig B]

Is that how you think a deterrent works? How quaint.

A deterrent works if and only if the potential aggressor believes you would use it. A national leader who announces in advance that he will never use nukes has not only removed at a stroke his country's key line of defence, but has removed the only line of defence that does not result in human deaths.

That's kind of important if you're in charge of a country.

So if you say you are capable of destroying hundreds or thousands of millions of people, and if that's the most important thing, then all you have to do is say the words, and it doesn't matter of you are a crook and careerist whose only reason for being in politics is self aggrandisement, and who will destroy civil rights and the environment, you still have to be elected, because blowing up the world is more important than anything else, isn't it?

No wonder political swindlers pick on some issue like that. Don't care about Adolf removing civil rights. After all, he's very sound on the dangers of the Judaeo-Bolshevik conspiracy and that's more important, isn't it?

On this subject, by the way, Soviet communism has collapsed. Why do we still have to blow up the world? I thought we were defending the free world against an unprecedented international scourge. But it's gone away, and for some unfathomable reason the need for world destroying deterrence hasn't. Were we being lied to all these years of the Cold War?

 

[baron]

So if you say you are capable of destroying hundreds or thousands of millions of people, and if that's the most important thing, then all you have to do is say the words, and it doesn't matter of you are a crook and careerist whose only reason for being in politics is self aggrandisement, and who will destroy civil rights and the environment, you still have to be elected, because blowing up the world is more important than anything else, isn't it?

Pardon?

 

[Giz]

So if you say you are capable of destroying hundreds or thousands of millions of people, and if that's the most important thing, then all you have to do is say the words, and it doesn't matter of you are a crook and careerist whose only reason for being in politics is self aggrandisement, and who will destroy civil rights and the environment, you still have to be elected, because blowing up the world is more important than anything else, isn't it?

No wonder political swindlers pick on some issue like that. Don't care about Adolf removing civil rights. After all, he's very sound on the dangers of the Judaeo-Bolshevik conspiracy and that's more important, isn't it?

On this subject, by the way, Soviet communism has collapsed. Why do we still have to blow up the world? I thought we were defending the free world against an unprecedented international scourge. But it's gone away, and for some unfathomable reason the need for world destroying deterrence hasn't. Were we being lied to all these years of the Cold War?

This post is either hysterically silly, or silly hysterics but I can't decide which.

 

[dudalb]

SOme people on the UK left just cannot accept that Corbyn is simply a terrible,terrible, party leader,and will blame everybody to avoid accepting that fact.

 

[Seismosaurus]

Let's take you at your word then. Can you explain to me why you think Corbyn not wanting to nuke someone is more important than ANYTHING else? Don't refer to anything you sourced from the media in your answer for bonus points.

Because defending the country is literally THE most clear cut and important duty of any government. If your country isn't safe from attack, especially nuclear attack, then nothing else you do matters.

And I don't mind him not wanting to nuke people. I don't even mind him deciding in advance that he won't do it, no matter what - I wouldn't be surprised if others have made that decision before. But coming out and SAYING that you won't is a monumentally stupid thing to do.

Because I think I smell *****.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed to comply with Rule 12 & Rule 0

 

[Craig B]

... And I don't mind him not wanting to nuke people. I don't even mind him deciding in advance that he won't do it, no matter what - I wouldn't be surprised if others have made that decision before. But coming out and SAYING that you won't is a monumentally stupid thing to do.

That's the very odd thing about this, and I have already alluded to it.

So if you say you are capable of destroying hundreds or thousands of millions of people, and if that's the most important thing, then all you have to do is say the words ...

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Because defending the country is literally THE most clear cut and important duty of any government. If your country isn't safe from attack, especially nuclear attack, then nothing else you do matters.

And I don't mind him not wanting to nuke people. I don't even mind him deciding in advance that he won't do it, no matter what - I wouldn't be surprised if others have made that decision before. But coming out and SAYING that you won't is a monumentally stupid thing to do.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed to comply with Rule 12 & Rule 0

And why do you think the country isn't safe from nuclear attack? Who is going to nuke us? Why haven't they already nuked Spain or Sweden or any other country without nukes?

What is the daily impact to your life of this risk? Vs the economy? Having a job? Having clean air? Having clean water? Etc etc?

If you want to discuss threats to your safety then even surely the police are more relevant?

But no... Non existent threats from bogeymen are where it's at. Strong and stable leadership is required. Crush the saboteurs!