Why can't Corbyn connect with public?

[MikeG]

.........everybody falls for the worst marketing techniques in the world.

You just contradicted yourself.

 

[MCel58]

You just contradicted yourself.

I did not say they were not effective but in terms of running a country they are certainly not good, they are just another facet of spin.

 

[The Don]

In the upcoming election I'd rather people didn't forget about whether his proposals are right or wrong and just focus on the presentation above all else.

The trouble with Corbyn is that he is such a poor communicator that he cannot articulate his proposals well enough for people to be able to determine whether they are right or wrong and he is so ineffective as a leader that I for one am concerned that, if elected, he wouldn't be able to deliver those proposals.

The other thing that counts against Corbyn is that he has a long (and continuing) history of not actually following party policy. If party policy is 'A' and Corbyn believes 'B' is the right thing then that's what he will vote for. As a backbencher that's merely an irritant but as party leader and prospective Prime Minister it's a worrying indication that the party manifesto will be thrown out of the window on the first day in office and instead Corbyn will attempt to deliver his personal manifesto (which has been well documented over the past three decades) - likely against the will of a large part of the Parliamentary Labour Party who will want the manifesto honoured.

Because what that gets you is a government that is very wrong.

We don't *just* focus on the presentation, however the poor quality of the presentation is another reason to question his fitness to be Prime Minister. Indeed, Corbyn's insistence that it's all just spin against him has echoes of Trump's "fake news". Reporting of his well documented failures as party leader should be discounted because the press has got it in for him.

We can spend all day talking about how the better option isn't perfect while the bad guy walks off with the prize as we just saw happen in the States.

If we're talking about someone living in a cloud-cuckooland of their own devising then I have questions about Corbyn in that regard. IMO he, and his political beliefs, haven't matured beyond the sixth-form common room he inhabited back in the 1970s.

IMO Theresa May would be a very poor choice as Prime Minister because she's rabidly pro Brexit, will punish the weakest in society and will sell the UK's future cheaply to get a trade deal.

OTOH Corbyn would also be a bad choice, possibly worse. He too is pro Brexit but his muddle-headed incompetence may lead to the UK getting a particularly bad Brexit deal. He may set out to protect the weakest in society but a return to 1970's left wing economic policies and industrial relations means that he will lack the means to do so and instead inadvertently punish everyone in society. His lack of intellectual horsepower and laziness means that he will be unable to learn quickly enough to adapt as situations change and he will resort to the politics and policies of the 1970s common room.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

This discussion isn't going to move forward unless you start giving specific examples of what you consider "extreme right wing stuff" and "extreme left wing" stuff.

You just don't get that presentation is very important in convincing people that your proposols are right, do you?
You are so commited to your ideology that you cannot imagine that other people don't agree with you and need to be convinced. THis is why hard line ideologues are often the worst advocates for their point of view.

Yet another straw man. Please stop it. Really.

I do get that presentation is important in convincing others. I've been arguing that the way the media presents both Corbyn and may has been vital in their respective positions for example.

I've said elsewhere that Corbyn is not a very good communicator. He doesn't really come across very well in interviews etc

However that doesn't make his policies wrong. And it doesn't mean that you should vote for May instead.

I'm asking people to look beyond the man to the content of what is being said.

Of course you can accuse me of being a hardline ideologue but the slight flaw in that accusation is that I am not a labour supporter and not a labour voter. Meanwhile May continues to get off scot free.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

The problem is that Governments now get elected on slogans and appearance over substance. So as long as Theresa May actually doesn't say anything but repeats her mantra providing the worst sort of subliminal advertising she will appear strong. However, every time she says anything with any policy behind it then it will be shown that she is also not a strong leader as in her radio question session with voters on the NHS yesterday.
At this point we know nothing about any of the Tories policies except their immigration target which they have consistently failed to meet. Her EU approach is at best seriously flawed and she appears to have nothing new to offer but I am waiting to see their manifesto. So at present she sticks to the mantra in very controlled environments and everybody falls for the worst marketing techniques in the world.

Ex bloody zactly.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

The trouble with Corbyn is that he is such a poor communicator that he cannot articulate his proposals well enough for people to be able to determine whether they are right or wrong and he is so ineffective as a leader that I for one am concerned that, if elected, he wouldn't be able to deliver those proposals.

The other thing that counts against Corbyn is that he has a long (and continuing) history of not actually following party policy. If party policy is 'A' and Corbyn believes 'B' is the right thing then that's what he will vote for. As a backbencher that's merely an irritant but as party leader and prospective Prime Minister it's a worrying indication that the party manifesto will be thrown out of the window on the first day in office and instead Corbyn will attempt to deliver his personal manifesto (which has been well documented over the past three decades) - likely against the will of a large part of the Parliamentary Labour Party who will want the manifesto honoured.



We don't *just* focus on the presentation, however the poor quality of the presentation is another reason to question his fitness to be Prime Minister. Indeed, Corbyn's insistence that it's all just spin against him has echoes of Trump's "fake news". Reporting of his well documented failures as party leader should be discounted because the press has got it in for him.



If we're talking about someone living in a cloud-cuckooland of their own devising then I have questions about Corbyn in that regard. IMO he, and his political beliefs, haven't matured beyond the sixth-form common room he inhabited back in the 1970s.

IMO Theresa May would be a very poor choice as Prime Minister because she's rabidly pro Brexit, will punish the weakest in society and will sell the UK's future cheaply to get a trade deal.

OTOH Corbyn would also be a bad choice, possibly worse. He too is pro Brexit but his muddle-headed incompetence may lead to the UK getting a particularly bad Brexit deal. He may set out to protect the weakest in society but a return to 1970's left wing economic policies and industrial relations means that he will lack the means to do so and instead inadvertently punish everyone in society. His lack of intellectual horsepower and laziness means that he will be unable to learn quickly enough to adapt as situations change and he will resort to the politics and policies of the 1970s common room.

If you have concerns about promises being ditched on day one I think you should be very worried about May and the Tories. She apparently does what she likes on any given day with the full support of her party. A rogue Corbyn if such a thing happened is highly unlikely to get the party behind him to push these things through.

The current Tories are all lined up to unleash every bad idea they ever thought of to the sound of great applause. That's downright scary.

 

[The Don]

If you have concerns about promises being ditched on day one I think you should be very worried about May and the Tories. She apparently does what she likes on any given day with the full support of her party.

I'm sure you have ample evidence for this claim, specifically with respect to "doing" as opposed to "saying". In particular I'd be looking for unilateral May actions that run counter to Conservative Party policy.

A rogue Corbyn if such a thing happened is highly unlikely to get the party behind him to push these things through.

tbh the biggest challenge Corbyn faces is the fact that there is almost literally no chance that he'll be PM but I'm not sure what you're claiming. If you're claiming that he won't get party membership behind him then I disagree. Momentum have infiltrated the party to the extent that the membership is firmly Corbynite, not least because moderates like me have left the party. If you're saying that he wouldn't have the support of the PLP then I think that very much depends on what the PLP would look like after the election.

If the "good news" is that Corbyn would be unable to sufficiently derail the party as PM then that's pretty sparse good news. His customary opposition to party policy unless it aligns with his personal views and his tight knit group of loyalists mean that official party policy which isn't acceptable to Jeremy wouldn't get through either.

The current Tories are all lined up to unleash every bad idea they ever thought of to the sound of great applause. That's downright scary.

Evidence of the highlighted ?

MikeG has often accused me of hyperbole when it comes down to my characterisation of the Conservatives as a bunch of amoral opportunists seeking to sell Britain down the river in order to line their pockets and the pockets of their cronies but I think you've comprehensively outdone me.

I think that the Conservatives will follow a predictable path of furthering business interests over those of the employee, reducing civil liberties in the name of security and seeking to unleash market forces in the public sector. I do not think that they are super villains deliberately trying to screw people over, it's just that they are operating in as different a frame of reference from me as Corbyn himself is (although for different reasons).

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I'm sure you have ample evidence for this claim, specifically with respect to "doing" as opposed to "saying". In particular I'd be looking for unilateral May actions that run counter to Conservative Party policy.

Well she committed to a Hard Brexit after supporting Remain.
She called an election despite saying she wouldn't.
She U-turned on the NI increase that was in the budget.

And Scotland is still waiting for the Tories to fulfil their 'promise' from Indyref.

And of course the party (and most of the country it seems) supports her at every step no matter what she says.

tbh the biggest challenge Corbyn faces is the fact that there is almost literally no chance that he'll be PM but I'm not sure what you're claiming.

Yes, that seems to be the case

If you're claiming that he won't get party membership behind him then I disagree. Momentum have infiltrated the party to the extent that the membership is firmly Corbynite, not least because moderates like me have left the party. If you're saying that he wouldn't have the support of the PLP then I think that very much depends on what the PLP would look like after the election.

I'm saying you can't have it both ways. If he's incompetent and a terrible leader and unable to get people to support him and be loyal to him then he will also be unable to single-handedly implement his secret Rogue Corbyn manifesto.

If the "good news" is that Corbyn would be unable to sufficiently derail the party as PM then that's pretty sparse good news. His customary opposition to party policy unless it aligns with his personal views and his tight knit group of loyalists mean that official party policy which isn't acceptable to Jeremy wouldn't get through either.

So yeah... worst case scenario is we have an ineffective government that doesn't really do much. I'd take that over the other option.

Evidence of the highlighted ?

Seriously?

Hard Brexit.
Ridiculous immigration controls.
Scrapping human rights legislation
Cosying up to Trump
Fox hunting
Scrapping worker protections

MikeG has often accused me of hyperbole when it comes down to my characterisation of the Conservatives as a bunch of amoral opportunists seeking to sell Britain down the river in order to line their pockets and the pockets of their cronies but I think you've comprehensively outdone me.

I think that the Conservatives will follow a predictable path of furthering business interests over those of the employee, reducing civil liberties in the name of security and seeking to unleash market forces in the public sector. I do not think that they are super villains deliberately trying to screw people over, it's just that they are operating in as different a frame of reference from me as Corbyn himself is (although for different reasons).

I don't really care what their motives are. I care about what they are doing and plan to do. They are telling us what they plan to do. Open season on immigrants and foreigners. No more being able to hide behind human rights or workers protections to stop the state or big business being able to do whatever the hell they please. A return to good old 1950s values. And a good old fox hunt at the weekend to celebrate.

But god no. The big threat is that Corbyn won't pre-emptively nuke Russia or wants the state to own a few railway franchises.

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

...

OTOH I'd have thought that calling for re-natonalisation of key industries is a pretty left wing policy

...

Interestingly I'm relatively right wing and think Corbyn is a useless pillock but I have some sympathy with his nationalisation plans.

Things like the car industry (British Leyland) should never have been in national ownership but I absolutely see an argument for nationalisation of basic infrastructure - the things that allow a country to work and cater to the most basic needs of its citizens. Water would be absolutely top of my list and power supply not far behind. Then telecoms and probably the rail infrastructure (though I can see arguments for competing operators on that infrastructure). Personally I'd have kept the post office in public ownership as well - as part of the communications infrastructure.

Oh and roads of course but then most people seem to realise they shouldn't be private - though there are moves even there. Similarly the health service.

These are all part of the basic infrastructure and operation of a country. Beyond that, absolutely allow market forces to compete but the provision of basic services absolutely should be in the control of the country.

 

[3point14]

You want to be just a little cautious of that claim. PFI and PPP were mainly about capital spending, and ongoing building, plant and equipment servicing and maintenance contracts. They weren't really about "service delivery" in terms of health care professionals dealing with patients. Capital projects are something that governments have proven themselves incredibly poor at delivering, and so although I don't seek to defend PFI or PPP, the idea that government should be designing, commissioning and contracting building projects around the NHS estate is not credible. These are projects which must be delivered by the private sector if you want buildings on time and on budget.

does the bolded actually happen?

I am deeply sceptical of the fabled efficiency of the private sector. (ETA: and I work in it)

Given your background, can you show me major building projects undertaken by the private sector on behalf of the public that came in on time and on budget?

I really didn't think anything that major came in as predicted, but I admit it's not something I know a great deal about.

 

[3point14]

OTOH I'd have thought that calling for re-natonalisation of key industries is a pretty left wing policy

I think this gets a little tricky.

Calls for renationalisation of key industries would be an extremely left wing policy if those privatised, essential industries were delivering good service and maintaining infrastructure at a reasonable price to the public.

Given that the majority of previously publicly owned and now privatised services seem to be delivering a poor service and not maintaining infrastructure at a price greater, it seems, than was being paid previously, I think it's just a solution to a problem.


This is part of my problem with attempting to describe complex social, economic and political views as a point on a line, it's just decisive and policies end up damned because they're labelled as 'left' or 'right' when just looking to see if they were a good idea without all that restrictive mental baggage getting in the way.

 

[Aber]

Water would be absolutely top of my list.

Why would nationalisation be better than the current situation of private ownership with robust regulation?

The risks with nationalisation are producer capture, ministers with grand plans, and government funding of capital expenditure; most of these are minimised under the current structure, although of course regulatory capture is still an issue.

 

[MikeG]

I'm with you to an extent, ETA. It was water privatisation that became the step-too-far for me in Thatcher's time. She'd sorted out a few things that needed sorting out, sold off some things that governments should never own in a month of Sundays, but then privatised the water board. Too much.

BR was awful. The rolling stock was decrepid. It was overstaffed, unionised, strike-ridden, unpunctual, unreliable. Nonetheless, rail tickets were affordable. There has to be a better system than going back to BR, but it certainly isn't what we have at the moment. It's particularly galling that so many of the franchisees are state railways from other countries.

My biggest gripe (well it isn't that as there is no prospect of Labour having the chance of implementing the policy) is that Labour would have to borrow billions and billions to even start such a programme of renationalisation. We simply don't have the money to do it. Living within your means seems such a fundamental notion at any level, and this is just symptomatic of Labour's age-old spend-spend-spend mentality. Tax and spend..........someone else will sort out the economic mess afterwards. This is fundamentally why no Labour government until Tony Blair's ever won re-election.

 

[Aber]

Given that the majority of previously publicly owned and now privatised services seem to be delivering a poor service and not maintaining infrastructure at a price greater, it seems, than was being paid previously, I think it's just a solution to a problem.

Some evidence of where you think the problems are?

 

[Aber]

Nonetheless, rail tickets were affordable. There has to be a better system than going back to BR, but it certainly isn't what we have at the moment. It's particularly galling that so many of the franchisees are state railways from other countries.

Conclusion..
So the next time someone says (or you read) "Britain has the highest rail fares in Europe", you'll know this is only 15% of the story.* The other 85% is that we have similar or even cheaper fares, too.* The big picture is that Britain has the most commercially aggressive fares in Europe, with the highest fares designed to get maximum revenue from business travel, and some of the lowest fares designed to get more revenue by filling more seats.

https://www.seat61.com/uk-europe-train-fares-comparison.html

 

[MikeG]

Why would nationalisation be better than the current situation of private ownership with robust regulation?......

Profits.

Water companies are taking billions and billions in profits and shareholder dividends. This is money which should be used for the general good, rather than the enrichement of shareholders. It should be entirely, 100%, ploughed back into infrastructure and maintenance.

 

[3point14]

The current Tories are all lined up to unleash every bad idea they ever thought of to the sound of great applause. That's downright scary.

Yes. I really hope Mike's right about the Tory's human and employment rights plan, but I think he isn't.

I think the first thing to go, when the country looks like it's going to run out of money after the UK leaves the EU is going to be all those pesky employment rights that costs so much.

Environmental protections would be at risk too, now we won't have those pesky Europeans telling us to keep the beaches and the air clean.

I hope I'm wrong, because it seems our PM is just going to be able to do as she pleases.



Oh, and this whole conversation seems to be a superb demonstration that vested interest, through lobbying and ownership of media, move the Overton window ever rightwards.

 

[3point14]

Hard Brexit.
Ridiculous immigration controls.
Scrapping human rights legislation
Cosying up to Trump
Fox hunting
Scrapping worker protections

You missed the below:

"...about the illegal immigrant who cannot be deported because, and I am not making this up, he had a pet cat."


That she totally made up.

 

[Aber]

Profits.

Water companies are taking billions and billions in profits and shareholder dividends. This is money which should be used for the general good, rather than the enrichement of shareholders. It should be entirely, 100%, ploughed back into infrastructure and maintenance.

Profits are not really the issue as the cash gets recycled back into capex.

Last dividend I can find for Thames Water is £82m on revenue of £2bn.

 

[MikeG]

https://www.seat61.com/uk-europe-train-fares-comparison.html

That amounts to anecdotal evidence, as it is based on just a very few similar journeys. I could add the cost of going in to London from Colchester:

£50 for a day trip to London. Note the comparison with the coach fare (£21).

That's anecdotal evidence too. So how about:

This is money....UK fares ten times higher than Continents.

BBC........fares ten times higher than Continent