Thornberry gives Abbott style performance today on Radio 4

[jaywalker]

steveo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> 'So he rejects the deployment of charisma'

>

> That's handy

what does this mean? did you not understand the post at all?

[KidKruger]

I think steveo is saying that it's handy that Corbyn rejects the opportunity to deploy his charisma, in the same way it's handy thet a man with no arms rejects the opportunity to shake hands with someone.

Please correct me steveo if I have spoken out of turn.

[DaveR]

"One way of reading the attraction of Labour is the profoundly ethical and human non- or even anti-leadership stance of Corbyn. As a socialist he does not believe in the individual leader, but in the community. So he rejects the deployment of charisma and rhetorical plays for imaginary personal identification (strong leader, stable, against chaos, believe me). The media, who thrive on reflecting such imaginaries, can only know contempt for him. Yet, in some sense, he is speaking directly to all of us precisely because he self-negates."

That is indeed one way of reading it. But it is one that has no connection whatsoever with reality.

[robbin]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> I don't think he's good - I'd rather he wasn't

> Labour leader - but tell me, on what opinion poll

> do you base the assertion that most are planning

> to vote for Labour in spite of him? I'm not aware

> of polls asking that sort of question...

I didn't base it on any specific opinion poll, just on a common sense reading of circumstances. For example, if the vast majority of his own MPs consider he is not up to the job (the no confidence vote) then that strongly suggests (as well as everything else I have read) that many of those MPs are hearing on the doorsteps in their constituencies that he is a vote loser and that their voters might still vote Labour but not because of him.

If you want some polling input, here's something from the Guardian a few weeks ago - "

Fewer than half of Labour voters think Jeremy Corbyn would be the best prime minister, according to a poll for the Observer that finds the Conservatives remain the most trusted party on all key issues except the NHS. Research by Opinium suggests that given a two-way choice between Corbyn and Theresa May, 14% of voters would choose the Labour leader, compared with 47% for the prime minister. Among Labour voters asked the question, 45% said they would like to see Corbyn in No 10.

Twenty-eight per cent of those questioned said they wanted neither Corbyn nor May.

The Conservatives were the most trusted to lead Brexit negotiations among 35% of respondents, a figure unchanged from March and up from 30% in January. This compares with 12% for Labour, the same figure as March, but down from 13% in January.

So, among Labour voters, if less than half (45%) would like to see Corbyn as Prime Minister (a pretty astonishing statistic in itself), does that not strongly suggest that they are voting Labour in spite of him, not because of him?

[rendelharris]

Persuasive arguments Robbin but not entirely convincing - for example, if I'd been around in 1945 I probably would have thought Mr.Churchill would make a better Prime Minister than Mr.Attlee, but I would still have voted Labour, and that wouldn't have been "in spite of" Mr.Attlee. One can think candidate A is more fitted for the premiership than candidate B without necessarily holding candidate B in contempt. Not that we have anyone of the calibre of either of those two aforementioned standing today, of course.

[robbin]

I agree with your reasoning, of course. But, the point is I think his ratings are so dire that it's not a case of most people just thinking he might not be more fitted to the premiership, many actually hold him in a degree of contempt.

I have no idea how (or if) you plan to vote, but having read your posts from not long ago about JC, saying you were "sick of him" that he has an ego "the size of Bournemouth" and that Labour was "stuck with him" it sounds like if you were to vote Labour (unless you have radically changed your mind) it would not be because he was leader, but in spite of that fact?

If so, I'm in the same boat as you - if I was to vote Labour as I have done in the past, I would have to say it would very much be in spite of JC being leader, not because he is leader. I can hardly imagine his shambolic style actually running this country, negotiating with other nations and making difficult decisions, but then again the likelihood of that actually happening is so close to zero as to make me feel I could safely vote Labour without that scenario ever coming to pass. Arghh, isn't that 'the Trump effect'?!

[rendelharris]

I really honestly have yet to make up my mind, any of Labour, Lib Dems or Green has a chance of my vote, and yes I guess as it's the first time I've even considered not voting Labour at a general election in thirty years that says a lot about my view of Corbyn. Mind you, I can both think he's all I said above and still think he's been given an unfairly rough ride in the press compared to the robotic power-hungry May.

[Otta]

I used to say the same (don't rate Corbyn, but he HAS been given a tough run).

I still think there is some truth to it, BUT if he won't play the game at all, and acts like the press are out to get him, then really what can they do. If he doesn't give them anything good to write, they'll just take the piss.

[jaywalker]

Otta, are you serious? Have you read the Tory manifesto and its craven decision to abandon part two of the Leveson enquiry? Where people rely on newspapers for the formation/reflection of their opinions they are completely heteronomous in the face of such complicity.

[Otta]

Not denying any of that. I am just saying that by basically running away form them, Corbyn makes their job easy.

[JohnL]

Theresa May and Sky News seem to have had a bit of a run in (about the time Adam Boulton speculated

May was going to retire on health grounds).

Should have been a chance for Corbyn.