Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2023 22:20:06 GMT
Uh, The Guardian and its ilk were blowing his trumpet loudly. Mostly the Guardian was against him. Articles like this were commonplace there: www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/19/general-election-labour-annihilation-jeremy-corbynYeah, I mean "popular" is a relative term. Did a huge chunk of the UK dislike him and his policies? Sure, but that's true of pretty much every PM and Leader of the Opposition in living memory. Corbyn did better than many (most?) of them despite having the most hostile press and facing sabotage within his party. So, yeah, I would say he and his policies were popular by that standard.
|
|
|
Post by mowlick on Aug 24, 2023 22:20:35 GMT
No they weren't popular with voters in general - as the result showed. He lost. You don't think the fact that even with most of the press heavily against him, he managed to get a higher percentage of support than Brown, Miliband and even latter-day Blair demonstrates at least some level of popularity for his policies? Can't say that I do.
The loony left always have a reason for going down in defeat, but the fact remains that they usually do.
|
|
|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Aug 24, 2023 22:45:57 GMT
Uh, The Guardian and its ilk were blowing his trumpet loudly. Mostly the Guardian was against him. Articles like this were commonplace there: www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/19/general-election-labour-annihilation-jeremy-corbynYeah, I mean "popular" is a relative term. Did a huge chunk of the UK dislike him and his policies? Sure, but that's true of pretty much every PM and Leader of the Opposition in living memory. Corbyn did better than many (most?) of them despite having the most hostile press and facing sabotage within his party. So, yeah, I would say he and his policies were popular by that standard. So in your view, "popular" can mean a minority. There we differ.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2023 23:05:05 GMT
So in your view, "popular" can mean a minority. There we differ. Well then I guess we're just arguing over definitions. Taylor Swift is a popular singer but would you say the majority of people are fans? Edit: Apparently, since 1922 there has only been one UK party leader who achieved over 50% of the vote - Stanley Baldwin. So I guess Old Stan would be the only party leader you would consider having been popular?
|
|
|
Post by yggdrasil on Aug 25, 2023 12:19:32 GMT
Unfortunately, none of this translated into seats and the brothers and sisters are currently reduced to a few loony lefties muttering into their half pints of nettle beer about the evils of capitalism and whatever bollocks is currently in fashion. It by and large did translate into seats in 2017. Maybe could have even been a plurality without the hostile press and deliberate sabotage by Labour officials. The main reason it didn't translate into seats in 2019 is Corbyn was manipulated (and Starmer was a chief manipulator here) into adopting a strong second referendum stance. The leavers rallied around Boris with the Brexit party only running in constituencies where Labour currently held. The pro-leave press also backed Boris. Meanwhile, the remain parties like the Lib Dems and Greens did not make any similar offer to help Labour and secure that second referendum that was supposedly all important to them. Of the pro-remain press, the Independent and the Guardian refused to back Labour and the Mirror did so only with open reluctance. So you had Boris as head of a united Leave campaign against Corbyn as head of a disunited Remain campaign. And that’s why Labour lost so many seats. Nothing to do with voters being turned off by Corbyn's lefty policies. Indeed, Corbyn's natural position was the some as mine, for a Socialist Brexit. The faux socialist with a little "s", position is more one for the Guardian readers of the Labour party.
|
|
|
Post by yggdrasil on Aug 25, 2023 12:22:33 GMT
That wasn't an issue in 2017. Where's your evidence it suddenly became an issue in 2019? How do you argue the clear evidence that the Remainers refused to give him the same backing that the Leavers gave Boris made no significant contribution to the loss? Okay data person. My evidence is personal experience and knowing Corbyn was a twat and his garbage was never going to get anywhere. Certainly no more of a "twat" than Boris and he got elected on a one issue policy. Still, you helped us to have Boris and by default Liz Truss who crashed the economy and cost us untold billions. Yet it's Corbyn who would have made a mess of things?
|
|
|
Post by yggdrasil on Aug 25, 2023 12:24:05 GMT
You don't think the fact that even with most of the press heavily against him, he managed to get a higher percentage of support than Brown, Miliband and even latter-day Blair demonstrates at least some level of popularity for his policies? Uh, The Guardian and its ilk were blowing his trumpet loudly. "Some level of popularity" is different to "popular". Nonsense, The Guardian loathed Corbyn and especially Polly Toynbee. The Mirror was the only paper to give him luke warm support.
|
|
|
Post by mowlick on Aug 25, 2023 13:13:06 GMT
Uh, The Guardian and its ilk were blowing his trumpet loudly. "Some level of popularity" is different to "popular". Nonsense, The Guardian loathed Corbyn and especially Polly Toynbee. The Mirror was the only paper to give him luke warm support. No one takes any notice of the Guardian or much of the rest of the media for that matter, which is why the left is able to write brilliant articles savaging the right and each other and still spend most of its time in opposition.
|
|