The Jeremy Corbyn interview Watch

ColinDent
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#21
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#21
(Original post by Wired_1800)
I found it ok. I liked Corbyn’s calm and considered approach and his responses were fine with me.

Andrew Neil is decent but I dont think he is interested in truth but controversy. He sticks with points that will result with headlines rather than focusing on the details.
I guess it's all down to perspective but I feel that the majority will see it differently to yourself.
The interview with Mr Johnson will I feel be equally as uncomfortable for die hard Tories.
0
reply
Wired_1800
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#22
Report 1 week ago
#22
(Original post by ColinDent)
I guess it's all down to perspective but I feel that the majority will see it differently to yourself.
The interview with Mr Johnson will I feel be equally as uncomfortable for die hard Tories.
That is true. It was quite uncomfortable cos Neil went on the attack. I hope he does not let Johnson off easily.
0
reply
Reality Check
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#23
Report 1 week ago
#23
(Original post by Trinculo)
Of course the centre-left hasn't vanished - they just have no control of the party. The way Labour is structured, it's almost impossible for them to gain any traction and either get rid of Corbyn, or have a non-lunatic as leader. It's nailed on that no matter what happens in the next GE, the Labour Leader in 2020 will be from the militant hard left. It will be one of McDonnell, Long-Bailey, or Rayner. Thornberry is also a possibility.

As for Corbyn not leaving - the only circumstances I see that happening are if he feels tired of it and no longer wants it - weighed against his burning desire for Marxist Revolution. Let's not forget he lost a VONC by a massive, massive majority and simply ignored it. If he doesn't want to go, no one will make him. The Corbyn Project is not and never has been about winning power. It's about ideological purity of the Labour Party.

The centre-left in Labour is far far too weak to move against the hard-left. Apart from anything else, they have lost a lot of their key people in retirements, resignations and defections to the Lib Dems. A lot of those that are left like Kier Starmer and Cooper are really, really damaged by their allegience to Corbyn through all this.
I'd love to be more positive about this and tell you that you were being overly negative about the whole thing. But I can't. I think this analysis is very accurate. I suppose the question left is where do those centre-left people go - where is their home now? I don't believe they will allow follow Chuka et al.
0
reply
Wired_1800
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#24
Report 1 week ago
#24
(Original post by Reality Check)
I'd love to be more positive about this and tell you that you were being overly negative about the whole thing. But I can't. I think this analysis is very accurate. I suppose the question left is where do those centre-left people go - where is their home now? I don't believe they will allow follow Chuka et al.
I think they can stay in the Labour Party. We are a broad church of different views. There is no need to move to the Lib Dems like Mr Umunna did or become an independent. The Labour Party is for all views.
0
reply
the bear
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#25
Report 1 week ago
#25
it is just not on asking a confused pensioner these tricky questions. bless.
0
reply
Reality Check
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#26
Report 1 week ago
#26
(Original post by Wired_1800)
I think they can stay in the Labour Party. We are a broad church of different views. There is no need to move to the Lib Dems like Mr Umunna did or become an independent. The Labour Party is for all views.
I don't believe these people believe that it is a place for them and their views any longer. The entryism is complete. It's not really credible to describe New New Old Labour as a 'broad church' ! It is a marxist party, with zero possibility of winning an outright majority.
0
reply
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#27
Report 1 week ago
#27
(Original post by QE2)
What kind of a question is "Will you apologise the the Jewish community for anti-semitism?"
And why did he spend half of the interview repeating it, even after Corbyn had repeatedly answered it?

Then there was the "would you kill a terrorist if you didn't have to?" one. I think he may have been drinking.
Half the interview wasn't spent on it, about 30% was spent on antisemitism and only a small part of that on an apology (which Corbyn refused to give yesterday and is still refusing to give today).

I would like you try to arrest a terrorist wearing a suicide vest if you think it unnecessary.

(Original post by Wired_1800)
I found it ok. I liked Corbyn’s calm and considered approach and his responses were fine with me.

Andrew Neil is decent but I dont think he is interested in truth but controversy. He sticks with points that will result with headlines rather than focusing on the details.
You mean somebody is not interested in the truth when they give somebody many opportunities to answer the question asked? Corbyn was simply incapable of answering most of the questions, and when he did he often contradicted himself.
0
reply
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#28
Report 1 week ago
#28
(Original post by Wired_1800)
That is true. It was quite uncomfortable cos Neil went on the attack. I hope he does not let Johnson off easily.
He won't, nobody gets an easy ride off Neil, the easiest possible ride is one where you answer the questions asked instead of trying to answer some different one but politicians are incapable of that. Given the state of politicians today there is no way to win against Neil, only lose less badly than the other interviewees.
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#29
Report 1 week ago
#29
(Original post by fallen_acorns)
I haven't watched it yet - I will tonight when I'm home. But you seem to be going against the consensus there. From what I'm seeing, and not just from boris' fan-girl papers, is that his performance hasn't gone down terribly well. Not a disaster, and it won't be a key moment, but he certainly didn't do well or give a performance that will boost his campaign. Even left-wing papers and comentators are politely describing it as a 'difficult' evening for corbyn.

The comfort for me though is that Neil is one of the few ********s who is an equal-offending ********. He was pretty awful to Sturgeon in their interview, and I do believe he will be just the same with Boris, and that could be far worse because Boris has plenty of things that are pretty indefensible, and against someone as stuborn and dickish as neil who will keep interupting and asking and not letting it rest, I can't see it going well for Bojo.
I can understand people calling it "difficult", in the same way that Xmas dinner where grandad gets drunk and starts shouting the same things over and over is "difficult". However, he handled it pretty well didn't come out of it badly.
0
reply
fallen_acorns
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#30
Report 1 week ago
#30
(Original post by QE2)
I can understand people calling it "difficult", in the same way that Xmas dinner where grandad gets drunk and starts shouting the same things over and over is "difficult". However, he handled it pretty well didn't come out of it badly.
Maybe i'll agree with you - when someone uploads it to youtube I'll give it a watch. So far I can only find small edited bits, which I don't want to watch because they are too easily manipulated.
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#31
Report 1 week ago
#31
(Original post by Reality Check)
It was pretty disastrous.

He missed a golden opportunity to capitalise on his relative successes in previous television appearances. All he needed to do was say 'sorry'. But he didn't. He wriggled and writhed and evaded and acted too much like a professional politician. All he needed to do was say sorry sincerely for what Labour had done, or not done. But he didn't - and what will be remembered is that he was offered four times to apologise and he didn't.
Corbyn's problem is that he is a man of principle. He wouldn't "apologise to Britain's Jewish community for anti-semitism" because it would have been inappropriate for him to do so, because neither he, not the PLP is responsible for it. However, he did unequivocally and repeatedly condemn it and all forms of racism and bigotry.

I actually think this has damaged him quite seriously. Not with voters who'd already made their minds up about the man, but those who were still considering him.
It's difficult to see how it could have a negative effect. Rational Labour voters can see it for the non-issue it is. Tory and Brexit voters aren't going to vote Labour, but would look more favourable on him if they thought he was anti-Jewish.

The antisemitism,
What antisemitism? He repeatedly condemned antisemitism.

the spraying money around, the Brexit position... it just comes across as a risk.
And yet too others, Brexit, further austerity and the erosion of the welfare state are far more of a risk.

He also triggers memories of the 70s for too many people over the age of about 50.
My parents remember the Winter of Discontent. Both are voting Labour.

Such a shame we don't have a credible opposition, but once Labour lose this election (relatively badly, I suspect) then at least it will have to be an end to this failed Corbyn project and Labour can get back to something a bit more centre-left and electable.
Labour is a credible opposition. The problem is that too many people just suck up the media Kool aid about Corbyn. However, this can't really be undone so, through no fault of his own, Corbyn has to go.


Starmer for PM!
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#32
Report 1 week ago
#32
(Original post by ColinDent)
I couldn't agree more.
I bet you could if you really tried.
0
reply
Wired_1800
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#33
Report 1 week ago
#33
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
He won't, nobody gets an easy ride off Neil, the easiest possible ride is one where you answer the questions asked instead of trying to answer some different one but politicians are incapable of that. Given the state of politicians today there is no way to win against Neil, only lose less badly than the other interviewees.
That is true. I don't understand why politicians dont like answering simple direct questions, then make a u-turn when the truth is unveiled.
0
reply
Reality Check
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#34
Report 1 week ago
#34
(Original post by QE2)
Corbyn's problem is that he is a man of principle. He wouldn't "apologise to Britain's Jewish community for anti-semitism" because it would have been inappropriate for him to do so, because neither he, not the PLP is responsible for it. However, he did unequivocally and repeatedly condemn it and all forms of racism and bigotry.
But if you captain the ship, you're ultimately held responsible if it runs aground, even if you weren't at the wheel at the time.


It's difficult to see how it could have a negative effect. Rational Labour voters can see it for the non-issue it is. Tory and Brexit voters aren't going to vote Labour, but would look more favourable on him if they thought he was anti-Jewish.
Yes, you're right.


What antisemitism? He repeatedly condemned antisemitism.
Not strongly enough, and not clearly enough. Particularly given the context and the 'optics' of it. I needed a clear, unequivocal straight-down-the-barrel 'I'm sorry - we got this terribly wrong'. Not a mumbled, tired, 'we've been through this' type apology.


And yet too others, Brexit, further austerity and the erosion of the welfare state are far more of a risk.
Yes, indeed - Labour aren't the only guilty ones here.

My parents remember the Winter of Discontent. Both are voting Labour.
Two swallows don't make a summer


Labour is a credible opposition. The problem is that too many people just suck up the media Kool aid about Corbyn. However, this can't really be undone so, through no fault of his own, Corbyn has to go.


Starmer for PM!
I don't believe that extreme can ever equal credible. After all, 'credible' really means 'believable', and the idea that Labour could turn this country into a marxist fantasy land with the consent of the people is, for me, just that: a fantasy. A very scary fantasy, too.
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#35
Report 1 week ago
#35
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Half the interview wasn't spent on it, about 30% was spent on antisemitism and only a small part of that on an apology (which Corbyn refused to give yesterday and is still refusing to give today).
Same thing.

I would like you try to arrest a terrorist wearing a suicide vest if you think it unnecessary.
Are you claiming that no Islamist terrorist has ever been arrested?
Corbyn said that he would not order a summary execution if arrest was possible. I absolutely agree. It's what makes us better than them.
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#36
Report 1 week ago
#36
(Original post by fallen_acorns)
Maybe i'll agree with you - when someone uploads it to youtube I'll give it a watch. So far I can only find small edited bits, which I don't want to watch because they are too easily manipulated.
It's on iPlayer
0
reply
Wired_1800
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#37
Report 1 week ago
#37
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Half the interview wasn't spent on it, about 30% was spent on antisemitism and only a small part of that on an apology (which Corbyn refused to give yesterday and is still refusing to give today).

I would like you try to arrest a terrorist wearing a suicide vest if you think it unnecessary.


You mean somebody is not interested in the truth when they give somebody many opportunities to answer the question asked? Corbyn was simply incapable of answering most of the questions, and when he did he often contradicted himself.
I dont agree with you on this one. Andrew Neil wanted Corbyn to apologise for historic cases of anti-semitism in the Party which Corbyn was right not to apologise for. He clearly recognised the failings that occur whilst he was leader but Neil’s line of questioning was trying to paint Corbyn as the reason for the anti-semitic attacks.

Also, Neil failed to state that the Chief Rabbi is a close friend of Boris Johnson, so his intervention may have been more political than religious, as it was pointed out later on other programmes.
0
reply
fallen_acorns
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#38
Report 1 week ago
#38
(Original post by QE2)
It's on iPlayer
unfortuantly blocked where I live, and VPNs crawl when I try and connect that way.

Luckily for people living abroad like me, there are some great people on youtube who upload allmost all of the poltical coverage from the main channels (until their accounts get banned, but others always pop up). It will come up, I just have to be patient!
0
reply
Wired_1800
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#39
Report 1 week ago
#39
(Original post by Reality Check)
I don't believe these people believe that it is a place for them and their views any longer. The entryism is complete. It's not really credible to describe New New Old Labour as a 'broad church' ! It is a marxist party, with zero possibility of winning an outright majority.
I disagree with you. We have a broad church in the Labour Party.
0
reply
Neilos
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#40
Report 1 week ago
#40
I don't exactly feel sorry for Corbyn, but it was a little painful to watch. Came across very badly, looked out of his depth and seemed pretty uncomfortable in the setting.

Kept my attention, though. Normally I'd change the channel to escape a politician being interviewed, but this had that 'I don't want to watch but I can't stop' appeal.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you work while at uni?

Yes I work at university (44)
33.33%
No I don't (62)
46.97%
I work during the holidays (26)
19.7%

Watched Threads

View All