• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Why can't Corbyn connect with public?

Because he's a spineless, devious, irritating, incompetent, parasitic, antisemitic, weak-minded, terrorist-loving, leftist weasel.
 
Because there is no way to hide that he is a bumbling incompetent buffoon, promoted way above his abilities, and with a dinosaur's vision of the world. It doesn't help that he can barely read the auto-cue, and that he is a dreadful speaker whether to a crowd or in one-on-one interviews.
 
Not defending him but Attlee was a poor public speaker with little charisma


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Undesired Walrus said:
Not defending him but Attlee was a poor public speaker with little charisma


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Different times I guess.

Back in the day if you could write a coruscating paper and have it published then you'd be fine because no-one expected to see and hear you.

Nowadays we expect our political leaders to be able to be great public speakers.
 
lionking said:
Was Attlee an admirable leader? I wouldn't have thought so.
Click to expand...

Others, including historians, disagree:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Prime_Ministers_of_the_United_Kingdom

Then, there's this, from an offical government (not Labour) biography:

His period as Prime Minister was one of intense activity. The notoriously blunt, relatively quiet man was nevertheless very skilled at quick, decisive action. His leadership style was apparently collective, but once the Prime Minister had let his Cabinet voice their opinions, he would quickly make decisions with military precision. As a result, practically all of Labour’s manifesto pledges were implemented under Attlee.
Click to expand...

Contrast with Michael Foot, who was regarded a great orator, but could dither (like Corbyn) around issues . I came across a transcript on Digital Spy of an interview at the time of the Falklands War which, if accurate—I haven't found a corroborating link yet—explains clearly why the wider public would have had a problem with him:

Walden: Sorry to interupt you Mr Foot, but we have some breaking news. We are hearing that British forces have sunk an Argentinian submarine off South Georgia. Do you condone this action?

"Foot: Well I, it very much depends, and I will say this, it depends on the circumstances.

"Walden: Mr Foot. You are the prime Minister. Your military commander asks permission to attack. Do you give that permission?

"Foot: I would say, and this is by no means set in stone, that I need to look at this very carefully and...

"Walden: Mr Foot. A decision is urgently needed. British lives are at risk. Does the Commander have permission to attack?

"Foot: Well, i, er let me just say this, we would consider very carefully...

"Walden: Yes or No, mr Foot?

"Foot: I, er, well, let me say this..."
Click to expand...

You simply cannot vacillate as a leader.
 
Undesired Walrus said:
Refuse to believe that it is simply a hostile media.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Why do you refuse to believe that?

Or rather in a world where image seems many times more important than policy is it so hard to believe that it is simply the man's image that is the problem for many?

How many of the judgements passed on him (here and elsewhere) are based on his policy positions and decisions vs his media persona?

The media have a huge role to play in shaping what the public think about politics and political figures.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Why do you refuse to believe that?
Click to expand...

Because in addition to negative media coverage there's clear evidence of his poor performance as the leader of the opposition.

Negative media coverage didn't cause the schism in the PLP and hasn't been the cause of his failure to address it.

Negative media coverage didn't force him to support Theresa May's Brexit plans.

Negative media coverage isn't responsible for his repeated poor performances at PMQ.
 
The Don said:
Negative media coverage didn't force him to support Theresa May's Brexit plans.
Click to expand...

Or support her [early] general election plans.


Maybe it's an elaborate critique of zero hour contracts and unpaid internships in Tory Britain? "Look at all this work I'm doing for Theresa and she hasn't paid me a penny" - J.C.
 
Undesired Walrus said:
Not defending him but Attlee was a poor public speaker with little charisma


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

But Attlee had the huge advantage of people being focused on policies rather than personalities, he didn't need to be charismatic for Labour to tap into the sense that there had to be real social change after WWII.

I honestly believe the least of Corbyn's problems is his left wing politics, I think that there's an argument to be made that the country has drifted too far too the right and that we need to stop assuming that a free market is some sort of panacea. Problem is that Corbyn is not the man to make that argument, he comes across as someone for whom it's all a matter of ideology and passion or charm just gets in the way.
 
The Don said:
Because in addition to negative media coverage there's clear evidence of his poor performance as the leader of the opposition.

Negative media coverage didn't cause the schism in the PLP and hasn't been the cause of his failure to address it.

Negative media coverage didn't force him to support Theresa May's Brexit plans.

Negative media coverage isn't responsible for his repeated poor performances at PMQ.
Click to expand...

All of that could be true and yet his media persona could still be the biggest problem.

And yes i think media coverage is driving the plp schism because their biggest issue seems to be that they don't think the public will vote for him.

I doubt the majority of people who think he is a dud could tell you the first thing about his performance in pmqs for example.
 
Garrison said:
But Attlee had the huge advantage of people being focused on policies rather than personalities, he didn't need to be charismatic for Labour to tap into the sense that there had to be real social change after WWII.

I honestly believe the least of Corbyn's problems is his left wing politics, I think that there's an argument to be made that the country has drifted too far too the right and that we need to stop assuming that a free market is some sort of panacea. Problem is that Corbyn is not the man to make that argument, he comes across as someone for whom it's all a matter of ideology and passion or charm just gets in the way.
Click to expand...

A lot in there to agree with. Imagine an alternative universe in which the media was highly sympathetic to Corbyn and spinning his every move in a positive light as the Mail Sun and Express do to some extent with the deplorable May. I don't believe anyone who says Labour wouldn't be 10-20 points better off in the polls with exactly the same policies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom