The Jeremy Corbyn interview Watch

QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#41
Report 2 weeks ago
#41
(Original post by fallen_acorns)
unfortuantly blocked where I live,
Luckily for people living abroad like me,
Gah! Why are you commenting on our business then? We have no need for Jonny Foreigner's opinions here! Why don't you go back to your own internet?
0
reply
Wired_1800
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#42
Report 2 weeks ago
#42
(Original post by Neilos)
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.
I dont think he was out of his depth. I think he felt frustrated with the constant attacks that he may be responsible for the cases of anti-semitism in the Party. Even when Corbyn mentioned the cases of anti-semitism that occurred during the Miliband era, Andrew Neil dismissed it, as it went against the narrative that anti-semitism was caused by Corbyn.

We have a clear understanding of the excellent policies of the Labour Party but the media is trying to portray it as lunacy. For example, Corbyn was asked how some of the public institutions will be nationalised. Corbyn provided a clear response but was dismissed quickly to avoid the viewers from understanding it.

Sometimes, I wish Corbyn had the training that Johnson had where he could have shouted over Andrew Neil rather than being calm and clear in his reponses.
0
reply
fallen_acorns
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#43
Report 2 weeks ago
#43
(Original post by QE2)
Gah! Why are you commenting on our business then? We have no need for Jonny Foreigner's opinions here! Why don't you go back to your own internet?
If its any consolation I won't be voting! So you don't need to worry about this foreigner!

Watching the interview now. Doesn't seem as bad as many are making it out. My main takeaway is mainly that Corbyn seems incrediably low-energy. I get that maybe he was going for the calm/statesman vibe, but it comes across more as tired old man.

Neil has his areas that hes trying to corner him on. But its the same line that's been annoying me, hes not trying to challenge any of Corbyns ideas, just pick him up on factual mistakes. Its great and all, but I said the same a while back about all interviews, they are just looking for the gotcha-headline.. they are not deep or meaningful discussions at all.

The anti-semitism thing was a weak play by Neil, but could have been so much easier avodied by Corbyn, if he just appologised (even if he shouldn't have to). The brexit part won't play well, but its not anything new, and no one seems to be talking about. The tax part is a very very small point that Neil is able to prove, but his examples are only £250 for married families, for which corbyn has a justification (even if it doesn't override the fact that he lied), and the pensioner example is far to niche to be a big deal..

will keep watching.

I'f I were a labour voter, I would be disapointed because any TV apperance like this is a chance to catch up with the torries, and any time you don't is a missed oppertunity.
1
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#44
Report 2 weeks ago
#44
(Original post by Reality Check)
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.
I fear not. Corbyn is only leader because he won (or, perhaps, lost) the drawing of straws among the hard left at the time of the infamous leadership election. Having got their man to the top Labour's Marxists have done the obvious and needful very effectively - use the rules to keep him there, implement the Momentum project and allow back all the old characters who are on their side. I believe Corbyn will not resign until they have made sure the rules guarantee a Marxist leadership candidate again, and Momentum will shoo in whoever they nominate, leaving moderate candidates trailing by a mile.

They have the foothold they probably thought would never come their way and they will not let it go. He will not observe any conventions of humilty or taking responsibility by resigning after crushing loss unless the route to a replacement in the same mould is secure and he can make it appear as if he is giving up (but as a smokescreen only).

The Marxists will not be as naive and foolish as the idiots who nominated Corbyn 'for the debate'. They are not interested in debate, just power. They will use whatever rules they can formulate and pass to keep themselves in control. When Cortbyn was elected Labour had rules that were designed to keep these dangerous people out and the useful idiots threw them away in nominating Corbyn.

The only way to a sensible opposition party is for the moderate members who survive the election to read the writing on the wall and form a new True Labour (or whatever) party. They will be resistant to doing it and it may take a while to sink in that they have to do it.
1
reply
Wired_1800
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#45
Report 2 weeks ago
#45
(Original post by Good bloke)
I fear not. Corbyn is only leader because he won (or, perhaps, lost) the drawing of straws among the hard left at the time of the infamous leadership election. Having got their man to the top Labour's Marxists have done the obvious and needful very effectively - use the rules to keep him there, implement the Momentum project and allow back all the old characters who are on their side. I believe Corbyn will not resign until they have made sure the rules guarantee a Marxist leadership candidate again, and Momentum will shoo in whoever they nominate, leaving moderate candidates trailing by a mile.

They have the foothold they probably thought would never come their way and they will not let it go. He will not observe any conventions of humilty or taking responsibility by resigning after crushing loss unless the route to a replacement in the same mould is secure and he can make it appear as if he is giving up (but as a smokescreen only).

The Marxists will not be as naive and foolish as the idiots who nominated Corbyn 'for the debate'. They are not interested in debate, just power. They will use whatever rules they can formulate and pass to keep themselves in control. When Cortbyn was elected Labour had rules that were designed to keep these dangerous people out and the useful idiots threw them away in nominating Corbyn.

The only way to a sensible opposition party is for the moderate members who survive the election to read the writing on the wall and form a new True Labour (or whatever) party. They will be resistant to doing it and it may take a while to sink in that they have to do it.
I am 100% behind Corbyn and, if there is another leadership challenge, I will vote for Corbyn again. If Corbyn selects a replacement then I will vote for that person. I know many others, who share my view.

The Labour Party needs to be in Government to implement the policies needed to bring the country out of this rot.
Last edited by Wired_1800; 2 weeks ago
1
reply
fallen_acorns
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#46
Report 2 weeks ago
#46
(Original post by Wired_1800)
I am 100% behind Corbyn and, if there is another leadership challenge, I will vote for Corbyn again. If Corbyn selects a replacement then I will vote for that person. I know many others, who share my view.

The Labour Party needs to be in Government to implement the policies needed to bring the country out of this rot.
"The Labour Party needs to be in Goverment"

"I'll keep voting for a leader that has already lost two elections, one referendum, one EU election, and multiple council elections"

Somethings not adding up there...
0
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#47
Report 2 weeks ago
#47
(Original post by Wired_1800)
I am 100% behind Corbyn and, if there is another leadership challenge, I will vote for Corbyn again. If Corbyn selects a replacement then I will vote for that person. I know many others, who share my view.

The Labour Party needs to be in Government to implement the policies needed to bring the country out of this rot.
If you're so adamant they need to be in charge, why are you repeating the tactic that's doomed the party to ineffective opposition for a decade?
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#48
Report 2 weeks ago
#48
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
He answered well on antisemitism? It took 4 attempts to get him to accept the Rothschild comment was an anti-semitic trope. The way you deal with Neil is pretty simple: you just answer the question instead of trying to answer the question you want.
I disagree. As the questions are loaded
0
reply
Reality Check
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#49
Report 2 weeks ago
#49
(Original post by Good bloke)
I fear not. Corbyn is only leader because he won (or, perhaps, lost) the drawing of straws among the hard left at the time of the infamous leadership election. Having got their man to the top Labour's Marxists have done the obvious and needful very effectively - use the rules to keep him there, implement the Momentum project and allow back all the old characters who are on their side. I believe Corbyn will not resign until they have made sure the rules guarantee a Marxist leadership candidate again, and Momentum will shoo in whoever they nominate, leaving moderate candidates trailing by a mile.

They have the foothold they probably thought would never come their way and they will not let it go. He will not observe any conventions of humilty or taking responsibility by resigning after crushing loss unless the route to a replacement in the same mould is secure and he can make it appear as if he is giving up (but as a smokescreen only).

The Marxists will not be as naive and foolish as the idiots who nominated Corbyn 'for the debate'. They are not interested in debate, just power. They will use whatever rules they can formulate and pass to keep themselves in control. When Cortbyn was elected Labour had rules that were designed to keep these dangerous people out and the useful idiots threw them away in nominating Corbyn.

The only way to a sensible opposition party is for the moderate members who survive the election to read the writing on the wall and form a new True Labour (or whatever) party. They will be resistant to doing it and it may take a while to sink in that they have to do it.
Thank you for this

I agree - and I've changed my mind on it since originally posting. Another member made much the same points, and I think you're both right. There is no return for Labour, is there? I find this very depressing: and not because my politics are centre left. Quite the contrary, actually. But without effective opposition, this terrible Tory government will be even more autocratic, resistant to scrutiny and high-handed than they have been.
0
reply
Wired_1800
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#50
Report 2 weeks ago
#50
(Original post by fallen_acorns)
"The Labour Party needs to be in Goverment"

"I'll keep voting for a leader that has already lost two elections, one referendum, one EU election, and multiple council elections"

Somethings not adding up there...
Some voters are falling for the media bias
0
reply
Wired_1800
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#51
Report 2 weeks ago
#51
(Original post by Drewski)
If you're so adamant they need to be in charge, why are you repeating the tactic that's doomed the party to ineffective opposition for a decade?
Not a decade though, but since Corbyn entered as Leader.
0
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#52
Report 2 weeks ago
#52
(Original post by Wired_1800)
Not a decade though, but since Corbyn entered as Leader.
Because they'd been so successful beforehand... Let's not forget it was the overtly left wing of the party that made the wrong Miliband leader. All that's happened since is an escalation of that.
0
reply
Wired_1800
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#53
Report 2 weeks ago
#53
(Original post by Drewski)
Because they'd been so successful beforehand... Let's not forget it was the overtly left wing of the party that made the wrong Miliband leader. All that's happened since is an escalation of that.
The issues that happened post 2010 were weird.

In 2010, there was a hung parliament in the midst of those terrible times of 2007/8 and the global recession. Sadly, the Labour Party was blamed even though it was Tatcher’s policy that removed regulations. The liberal democrats chose to side with the Tories despite previously denouncing such a coalition.

From 2010, we saw the steady and vicious dismantling of the state by the tories and liberal democrats in what I coined ‘Operation Managed Decline’. 2015 was when we began to see the light. We had a true Labour leader with strong and bold policies. Unfortunately, enemies within the Party were more interested in dismantling the Party than achieving power.

In 2017, we saw the real Labour come through with gains in Parliament despite the so-called wipeout that the media predicted. Now, we have another chance to show the Tories and their banker mates that we are the silent majority and enough is enough. No more destruction of welfare and social services, no sale of our NHS to the Americans, no poor schools and dodgy wages.

We can do it. If people like you, me and others can come together and support the Labour Party, we can unleash the potential of this great nation and retake our place at the helm of global affairs whilst rebuilding our nation as after almost a decade of Tory and Lib Dem disaster. We are doing this for the many and not the few.
Last edited by Wired_1800; 2 weeks ago
0
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#54
Report 2 weeks ago
#54
(Original post by Wired_1800)
The issues that happened post 2010 was weird.

In 2010, there was a hung parliament in the midst of that terrible times of 2007/8 and the global recession. Sadly, the Labour Party was blamed even though it was Tatcher’s policy that remove regulations. The liberal democrats chose to side with the Tories despite previously denouncing such a coalition.

From 2010, we saw the steady and vicious dismantling of the state by the tories and liberal democrats in what I coined ‘Operation Managed Decline’. 2015 was when we began to see the light. We had a true Labour leader with strong and bold policies. Unfortunately, enemies within the Party were more interested in dismantling the Party than achieving power.

In 2017, we saw the real Labour come through with gains in Parliament despite the so-called wipeout that the media predicted. Now, we have another chance to show the Tories and their banker mates that we are the silent majority and enough is enough. No more destruction of welfare and social services, no sale of our NHS to the Americans, no poor schools and dodgy wages.

We can do it. If people like you, me and others can come together and support the Labour Party, we can unleash the potential of this great nation and retake our place at the helm of global affairs whilst rebuilding our nation as after almost a decade of Tory and Lib Dem disaster. We are doing this for the many and not the few.
Labour will not win a UK general election without Scotland. Simple as that.

While the SNP are strong, the Conservatives will always be in power.
0
reply
Reality Check
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#55
Report 2 weeks ago
#55
(Original post by Drewski)
Labour will not win a UK general election without Scotland. Simple as that.

While the SNP are strong, the Conservatives will always be in power.
We'll have to see how it pans out after indyref2, which is surely coming.
0
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#56
Report 2 weeks ago
#56
(Original post by Reality Check)
We'll have to see how it pans out after indyref2, which is surely coming.
All that would do is remove the 50-odd seats. Unless they dramatically redraw the boundaries and fiddle the numbers the end product is still the same.
0
reply
Reality Check
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#57
Report 2 weeks ago
#57
(Original post by Drewski)
All that would do is remove the 50-odd seats. Unless they dramatically redraw the boundaries and fiddle the numbers the end product is still the same.
It wouldn't be the first time we'd had a bit of gerrymandering.
0
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#58
Report 2 weeks ago
#58
(Original post by Reality Check)
It wouldn't be the first time we'd had a bit of gerrymandering.
Random fact. Did you know we're saying that wrong?

The US politician it's named after pronounced his name with a hard G, like Gunn, rather than a soft G.
0
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#59
Report 2 weeks ago
#59
(Original post by Drewski)
All that would do is remove the 50-odd seats. Unless they dramatically redraw the boundaries and fiddle the numbers the end product is still the same.
It would remove 50-odd left of centre seats.
0
reply
Reality Check
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#60
Report 2 weeks ago
#60
(Original post by Drewski)
Random fact. Did you know we're saying that wrong?

The US politician it's named after pronounced his name with a hard G, like Gunn, rather than a soft G.
No! I'd automatically say it as in the name 'Gerry'. Who knew... (well you did, clearly )
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

Did you vote in the 2019 general election?

Yes (349)
46.41%
No (80)
10.64%
I'm not old enough (323)
42.95%

Watched Threads

View All