Why can't Corbyn connect with public?

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

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

Because they would rather be lied to as long as it makes them feel safe from the bogeyman.

So yes Corbyn was a bit daft to speak the truth but not for the reasons given. If he was more media savvy he would have fudged the issue. If course it's complicated by Labour actually having a diversity of opinion on the matter rather than the Tories who all wish they could nuke the foreigners off the planet tomorrow and will clap like seals when May tells them she might just do it.

Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is strength. War is peace.

 

[MikeG]

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.

Unfortunately, he is both a terrible leader, and a representative of a stone-age political ideology. When he is trounced at the election, those who want to cling to the the stone age ideology will claim that Labour only lost because Corbyn was a terrible leader (and the right wing press, you know.........it's always their fault), and that therefore the next leader should also be from the stone-age ideological wing of the party. There'll be a bun fight amidst the wreckage........

 

[baron]

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

All potential leaders worthy of the title will say the words, and therefore their ascent to positions of authority will be based on more domestic issues such as crime, immigration and the NHS. Defence of the country is primary concern that is a given in the minds of all right-thinking people.

 

[MikeG]

You have to remember that Corbyn's first job from school was with CND. He is a lifelong member of CND. He can't say anything else now, because he's said it a million times in the past. Just another reason why no sane party would elect him in the first place, and just another reason (as if one were needed) that he won't get near the reins of power now.

 

[Craig B]

All potential leaders worthy of the title will say the words, and therefore their ascent to positions of authority will be based on more domestic issues such as crime, immigration and the NHS. Defence of the country is primary concern that is a given in the minds of all right-thinking people.

And it is equally a given in the minds of these these right thinking people how the country should be defended? You say that words - unspeakably horrible ones - suffice. Others may recommend deeds.

But I asked before: the Red Menace that was about to attack and destroy the Free World for ideological reasons has imploded. Why do we still need to blow up the planet? Does it have anything to do with "right thinking people" wanting to keep bamboozling the electorate with God and Country certainties, while they go about the agreeable task of plundering the country's economy and the world's resources, to serve their own interests?

 

[baron]

And it is equally a given in the minds of these these right thinking people how the country should be defended? You say that words - unspeakably horrible ones - suffice. Others may recommend deeds.

Horrible words don't kill people. Deeds do. A deterrent by definition kills nobody. Do you object to the idea a country can be defended by words as opposed to wars?

But I asked before: the Red Menace that was about to attack and destroy the Free World for ideological reasons has imploded. Why do we still need to blow up the planet? Does it have anything to do with "right thinking people" wanting to keep bamboozling the electorate with God and Country certainties, while they go about the agreeable task of plundering the country's economy and the world's resources, to serve their own interests?

That's rather short-sighted. Do you really claim to predict what's going to happen 10, 30, 100 years in the future? Better to have a nuke and not need it than need one and not have it.

 

[MikeG]

........I asked before: the Red Menace that was about to attack and destroy the Free World for ideological reasons has imploded. Why do we still need to blow up the planet?......

Because the red menace is rebuilding, and flexing its muscles. Because nuclear weapons are proliferating, and are now in the hands of "rogue states". Imagine they had them, and no-one else did.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Problem is, is that he hasn't been honest and clear on use of nuclear weapons. Marr gave him the opportunity to say what he believed the other day when asked about what he would order the generals to do in the event of a nuclear strike. He didn't. I'd have more respect for him if he said 'I won't be writing those letters as I'll be calling for immediate disarmament'.

This is the problem with Corbyn. He says he's a straight talker unlike other politicians but really he's just the same as the rest of them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tolls]

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.

But that's Corbyn's own doing!
Not the media.
He's the one who is ignoring his own party's stance on Trident, for example.

He's the one who utterly pointlessly decided that the Falklands is something worth talking about.

No one else.

Yes, the NHS is more important, but he persists in going off on a tangent into one of his (not his party's) pet ideas.

 

[Seismosaurus]

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

And others already pointed out how ridiculous that is.

 

[Seismosaurus]

And why do you think the country isn't safe from nuclear attack?

I think it is. I think it would be less so with Corbyn in charge.

Who is going to nuke us?

Nobody is going to nuke us, in part because they know what would happen to them if they did.

Why haven't they already nuked Spain or Sweden or any other country without nukes?

Largely because those countries are part of NATO (something Corbyn is weak on as well), and thus protected by the conventional and nuclear forces of the likes of the USA and us.

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?

The daily impact of staying alive versus not staying alive? Pretty important.

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

That really depends on how you view it. To my view, no, they are not.

But no...

Incidentally, given that Corbyn has proven himself to be... well, let's be generous and say lacking in common sense... on those issues I mentioned, I find it harmful to his credibility on other issues. Why would I trust a man on the NHS or the police or anything else, when in my view that man has already demonstrated himself to be unfit to handle even mildly complex issues in politics?

Non existent threats from bogeymen are where it's at. Strong and stable leadership is required. Crush the saboteurs!

It's telling to me that those who support Corbyn have to pretend that nobody could possibly disagree with them honestly, and dismiss the realities of the nuclear world to do it.

Unlike you, I will not assume that you are just being dishonest or stupid because you disagree with me. You have different priorities and different ways of viewing the world. I think you're stupid and wrong, but at least I credit you with being so honestly.

 

[Seismosaurus]

Because the red menace is rebuilding, and flexing its muscles. Because nuclear weapons are proliferating, and are now in the hands of "rogue states". Imagine they had them, and no-one else did.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Ukraine found itself in possession of a stockpile of ex-Soviet nuclear missiles.

They gave them up in return for guarantees of non aggression from Russia and others. I imagine the anti-nuclear types in their country expressed thoughts similar to those in this thread about all the more important things they had to worry about.

That seems to have worked out quite well for them, yes? They must be very glad that there is no Russian menace for them to worry about these days. All just good friends together!

 

[DreadNiK]

Problem is, is that he hasn't been honest and clear on use of nuclear weapons. Marr gave him the opportunity to say what he believed the other day when asked about what he would order the generals to do in the event of a nuclear strike. He didn't. I'd have more respect for him if he said 'I won't be writing those letters as I'll be calling for immediate disarmament'.

This is the problem with Corbyn. He says he's a straight talker unlike other politicians but really he's just the same as the rest of them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

absolutely this - I decided to watch that interview to give him a chance, but I gave up in exasperation as he couldn't give a single straight answer to the first set of questions on defence

I also don't understand their stance on leaving the eu - why is that the one thing that the general public haven't been manipulated into wanting by the evil media? he must actually be in favour of it, otherwise it makes no sense to support it for this election, unless it is to win votes, but they don't seem to care about winning votes via any other policy...

 

[Craig B]

... That's rather short-sighted. Do you really claim to predict what's going to happen 10, 30, 100 years in the future? Better to have a nuke and not need it than need one and not have it.

No, I really claim to retrodict what happened thirty years in the past, and I choose to take lessons from that history, rather than from the op-ed columns of the Sunday Torygraph and the Daily Heil.

 

[baron]

No, I really claim to retrodict what happened thirty years in the past, and I choose to take lessons from that history, rather than from the op-ed columns of the Sunday Torygraph and the Daily Heil.

If you learned anything from history it should have been that the future cannot be predicted. Still, since you don't agree, can you post a few bullet points describing the political state of the world in 2067?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

But that's Corbyn's own doing!
Not the media.
He's the one who is ignoring his own party's stance on Trident, for example.

He's the one who utterly pointlessly decided that the Falklands is something worth talking about.

No one else.

Yes, the NHS is more important, but he persists in going off on a tangent into one of his (not his party's) pet ideas.

No it's not. It's the media that shape the story. It's the media that decided that these are the issues of the day rather than other ones. It's the media that tell people what is important and what isn't.

Yes he decided that the Falklands is important and that was pointless. But he probably said 100 things that day. And the media decided that was the one they would report. For all we know he mentioned the NHS 100 times that day and the Falklands once.

Saying the media is the cause is not saying that Corbyn is faultless it's merely acknowledging that it is the media who have shaped that view and equally shape an alternative view on May, Farron, etc.

The media are deciding the issues, the questions AND the answers - that's influence. Pure and simple. The media choose what they will report and what they won't. So anyone who thinks the media isn't influencing them is living on another planet.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I think it is. I think it would be less so with Corbyn in charge.

Fudge noted. What is the threat, where is it from?

Nobody is going to nuke us, in part because they know what would happen to them if they did.

Fudge noted. What is the threat? Where is it from?

Largely because those countries are part of NATO (something Corbyn is weak on as well), and thus protected by the conventional and nuclear forces of the likes of the USA and us.

So Corbyn's statement is irrelevant. As NATO would still retaliate. You're destroying your own argument. If you think Corbyn's views on NATO are the issue then why didn't you give them as the priority rather than the 2 that you did?

The daily impact of staying alive versus not staying alive? Pretty important.

Except you haven't yet identified a threat to staying alive. So yeah, not important at all.

That really depends on how you view it. To my view, no, they are not.

Then you seem to have some serious risk assessment issues. I believe the media have a strong influence here too.

Incidentally, given that Corbyn has proven himself to be... well, let's be generous and say lacking in common sense... on those issues I mentioned, I find it harmful to his credibility on other issues. Why would I trust a man on the NHS or the police or anything else, when in my view that man has already demonstrated himself to be unfit to handle even mildly complex issues in politics?

And there you have the media influence! Seed doubt in some areas and then you cast aspersions on all. You are explaining textbook fashion how media influence works and then denying that the media has a strong influence.

It's telling to me that those who support Corbyn have to pretend that nobody could possibly disagree with them honestly, and dismiss the realities of the nuclear world to do it.

I don't support Corbyn, though. I think Labour are a waste of space and Corbyn is a poor frontman. What I do admit freely though is that the media are having a field day on him. I don't think for a second that a Labour government would be worse for people than the Tories are thought. And yet the media and some idiots here will gladly parrot the line that May is somehow a strong decisive and credible leader. We even had some people here try to claim that May was damn near CENTRE LEFT when she came to power! She's now the leader of the most right wing government I can remember in the UK. She should be being pilloried on a daily basis by the media but instead they go after Corbyn whose biggest crime is that he's a bit of a wet blanket.

It's interesting though that you have to continually assert the 'realities' of a nuclear world without actually showing what they are or supporting them with evidence.

Unlike you, I will not assume that you are just being dishonest or stupid because you disagree with me. You have different priorities and different ways of viewing the world. I think you're stupid and wrong, but at least I credit you with being so honestly.

I have never said that you are being dishonest or stupid. It's interesting that people always interpret the accusation that they are being led by the media as a claim that they are stupid. It isn't. It's an acknowledgement that EVERYONE is led by the media.

As for dishonest. No, you could simply be wrong.

People can be incorrect without being dishonest OR stupid.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Ukraine found itself in possession of a stockpile of ex-Soviet nuclear missiles.

They gave them up in return for guarantees of non aggression from Russia and others. I imagine the anti-nuclear types in their country expressed thoughts similar to those in this thread about all the more important things they had to worry about.

That seems to have worked out quite well for them, yes? They must be very glad that there is no Russian menace for them to worry about these days. All just good friends together!

Yeah as it stands the only possible reason to have nukes is for smaller nations to avoid being regime-changed by the super-powers. That's why the NKs want them.

Well done on that, World!

Of course there is exactly 0 chance of a Russian land invasion of the UK so should I assume you are dishonest, stupid or incorrect here? You help me out.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

absolutely this - I decided to watch that interview to give him a chance, but I gave up in exasperation as he couldn't give a single straight answer to the first set of questions on defence

Remind me what happened when he gave a straight answer again? Seriously.

 

[Tolls]

No it's not. It's the media that shape the story. It's the media that decided that these are the issues of the day rather than other ones. It's the media that tell people what is important and what isn't.

But "the media" is not a monolithic entity.
Treating it as such is creating a boogeyman that doesn't actually exist. While you tilt at windmills, the person responsible for the stories being reported about him gets to point and say "fake news" ... "the media's picking on me".

Yes he decided that the Falklands is important and that was pointless. But he probably said 100 things that day. And the media decided that was the one they would report. For all we know he mentioned the NHS 100 times that day and the Falklands once.

It was an interview on the TV, dealing with UK sovereign territory! It's not as if it was even a stump speech.

Saying the media is the cause is not saying that Corbyn is faultless it's merely acknowledging that it is the media who have shaped that view and equally shape an alternative view on May, Farron, etc.

Last I checked Farron isn't getting off easily.
And May is looking more and more foolish, but there seems to be an inability on the other side to make the most of it.
That's not the media. That's a failure of the Labour press office...Seumas Milne, in this case.

The media are deciding the issues, the questions AND the answers - that's influence. Pure and simple. The media choose what they will report and what they won't. So anyone who thinks the media isn't influencing them is living on another planet.

Again.
They are not a monolithic entity.