Is Jeremy Corbyn a nice guy?

I don't necessarily think he couldn't match his opponents or has contempt for the media, it is more disappointment. He knows they are not really interested in what he has to offer, and are merely interested in entertaining soundbites and sensation. He applies the same thing to the Commons PMQ banter. While his stance of refusing to 'play the game' may take a bit of getting used to, it has been a long time coming. We should not put up with this kind of crap from our journalists or politicians. Journalists should be reporting on the important information, and politicians should be addressing the issues.

Po-faced and humourless are not synonyms for effective.

I don't necessarily think he couldn't match his opponents or has contempt for the media, it is more disappointment. He knows they are not really interested in what he has to offer, and are merely interested in entertaining soundbites and sensation. He applies the same thing to the Commons PMQ banter. While his stance of refusing to 'play the game' may take a bit of getting used to, it has been a long time coming. We should not put up with this kind of crap from our journalists or politicians. Journalists should be reporting on the important information, and politicians should be addressing the issues.

But what does he have to offer apart from 'gross inequality'? It's great to have those ideals but then again everyone does. And, with respect, as I've already mentioned, trying to instil his sense of civility in parliament isn't going to work. As long as the architecture, history and confrontational nature of parliament exist, the theatrics of the 'theatre' aren't going away anytime soon. When he denounces them and attempts to act civil he's already lost.

My issue isn't with his beliefs; my issue is with how he's not intellectually capable. And in that sense I'm on the same side as other Labour MPs. He isn't an effective socialist leader (or socialist for that matter) yet he's being heralded as the next Clement Atlee or Harold Wilson which, to me, is laughable given his background.

He is actually winning, as more people are actually bothering to watch PMQs. Just because something has been a certain way for a long time, doesn't mean it has to stay that way. Confrontation needs to end and cooperation needs to start at some point.

I don't think he is the next anything, he is his own man. He has more insight than most of the other MPs, and whatever you want to label him he is a leader, just not the kind we have had to endure before.

He is actually winning, as more people are actually bothering to watch PMQs. Just because something has been a certain way for a long time, doesn't mean it has to stay that way. Confrontation needs to end and cooperation needs to start at some point.

Don't be so naive and childish. How can someone with his aims get anywhere without confronting his enemies. If there is no confrontation he cannot make the progress he wishes.

The one thing he isn't is a leader. He has no leadership skills whatever. He may, for the moment, be a figurehead; he may have a leadership role. Unfortunately, responsibility for carrying out a role does not mean the incumbent necessarily has the skills and charisma required to carry out that role. He obviously doesn't.

This leaves the Labour MPs with a so-called leader they have no confidence in and, potentially, policies they do not like.

He has already spoken in parliament against official party policy (on Trident). If he cannot even get himself to follow official policy how do you expect him to get the troops to vote with him?

Labour are called the opposition for a reason. The house of commons was designed in that way for a reason. It's a hall for debate in which 'cooperation' comes after you've received a grilling and inwardly realise that you might be wrong. You can't change how British politics works as he wishes to without changing that environment.

When he denounces it and dismisses the ridicule from Theresa May he actually weakens his own position and strengthens hers - because of how entrenched the culture of parliament is in PMQs she will always emerge as victor. He also weakens his relationship with other Labour MPs by essentially giving them nothing to get behind. Is it any wonder they dislike him? PMQs may only be a small part of a politician's job but it surely symbolises the rift in the Labour party.

The point is, he isn't a leader. Honestly speaking would you follow Corbyn over the trenches?

I am not quite sure how many different ways there are to say this but I will try. His style is different. Yes. People don't use that style as it does not work. He does not have the ability to carry the successful style off, yet doesn't have the intellectual capability to realise his style does not work. At PMQs he pushes the problem he is trying to highlight. The opposition usually comes back with a carefully selected but weak statistic, he them pushes the same problem again, and usually gets some smart remark. He pushes the same problem.... hopefully by the sixth time people watching will have heard the problem, they will forget the weak statistics and the smart remarks. No. What they remember is Corbyn being bested again.

He leads by what he says rather than how he says it. Hilary Benn made a rousing speech that was acclaimed by the media in favour of bombing Syria. Great speaking skill, bad idea. The general public disagrees. It hates pacifism and sees the merit in what the UK is doing - surgical strikes in ISIS targets with minimal risk to civilians (and proved to be so by the outcome to date).

They seem to like his policies as Owen Smith their chosen representative is now pushing most of them. The truth is that Smith is too far to the left for the English electorate too.

Like most bills in parliament there were parts of the bill that were against official Labour policy, so he was within your definition OK to vote against it. It was also a free vote. It was a free vote previsely so that he could vote against it.

He has the stated aim of doing things differently. Highlighting problems is not confrontational. The title oppositon is a 'label' it does not mean that whatever one side says you have to take a different view regardless. Ridicule is a cheap and childish trick. Anyone with half a brain knows this, so while the media love it as it is entertaining, anyone interested in the issues regards it as pathetic. Given time this one sided ridicule will be seen for the weakness it is.

Thankfully he is the one leader who is the least likely to take us into another war. Unlike our previous great Labour 'leader'.

Corbyn supporters claim that because he was 'democratically' elected, the party should support the mandate of Labour members. But what I feel Labour party members (and many other voters of different parties) fail to realise is that democracy doesn't end with an intermittent vote every few years for leader. In fact, it starts primarily with parliament. MPs are the ones who work with Corbyn and understand his true levels of 'dialogue'. They are also the ones regularly lobbied by members of the public for issues that need addressing in each constituency - issues that they feel Corbyn and his movement do not seem to care about. In this type of scenario it is only rational to believe that there is a problem in the party.

Supporters of Corbyn refuse to acknowledge that; instead it is a Blairite 'smear' against his so-called 'decency'. In my most brutal opinion, it's akin to the populist faction of Brexiteers who blame every problem possible on immigration.

Yeah I imagine his views on immigration and Hamas would go down a treat with most working class people,

.

I'm sure we could go on for days about this. To summarise my points, it's not that I don't agree with what the Corbynites desire. Perhaps I do deep down. But political success isn't just about having lofty ideals. It really does involve a multitude of factors including one's ability as a leader, orator and critical thinker. These are traits that I feel Corbyn lacks. Exactly how to be a successful statesman has been well debated from Aristotle to Machiavelli. Being honest and humble, though, and looking at what ought to be done rather than what is done, doesn't seem to be a good way to go about it. If history can tell us anything here, it is that being civil in the sense of Jeremy Corbyn has not yet proved to have been successful.

Dont think he can be blamed for the aggression of some of his supporters bearing in mind they're not following his clear position of non violence and respect in the face of disagreements.

A stated position of non-violence does not necessarily equate to an actual position of non-violence and non-intimidation.

True, but on this point, for me, he is credible