Follow TV Tropes
Corbyn's basically the UK's Bernie Sanders, except actually competent. Relatively speaking. I mean, Corbyn at least actually managed to win leadership and get people elected.
The main difference is that whereas Sanders is an independent who simultaneously leans into the democratic party for a platform to run for president on and distances himself from the right-wing of that party, Corbyn is the Labour party's twice-elected leader, with the second vote getting more of the membership's vote than the first.
Corbyn's politics may resemble Sanders', but otherwise he has more in common with Hillary—A competent politician that does well in their own party, but is utterly loathed outside of it
They even have the rightwing smear campaigns in common too.
Hillary and Corbyn are also quite similar in that they've both had a concentrated media campaign geared towards delegitimising them, now that you mention it. Ha!
Politics-wise, Hilary is obviously further right to both.
Edited by GoldenKaos on Aug 23rd 2019 at 12:30:46 PM
The reason I call the lib dems a useless spoiler is that their entire policy is anti-Brexit, but they have all the appeal to Tory voters of soggy toast. So what their posturing and attempts to win votes DO is damage their own cause.
They know this, and yet seem more determined to attack Labour than actually achieve anything.
I genuinely think they're trying to set themselves up to be "The Opposition" in a post-Brexit Britain, framing the Tories as the main villains and Labour as the enablers/collaborators - in other words, what they were during the coalition.
I can't see how any of this posturing will help prevent Brexit, they must be planning further ahead.
I do think we need to place a caveat on Corbyn's campaigning prowess. Yes, he has proven to be a great campaigner. The last election began with predictions of 100 seat majorities for the Tories and ended in a hung parliament.
But who was he up against? Theresa "Maybot" May who demonstrated the empathy of a bulldozer when dealing with Grenfell; the stability of custard when her flagship manifesto promise fell apart and the messaging prowess of King Canute when trying to rescue her flailing campaign.*
Even his Labour leadership campaigns were fought against various non-entities that were promising more of the same in a clear change election.
His election opponent this time is of a much higher calibre. Johnson is a campaigner - Lord knows that he doesn't know how to do anything else. Just look at the last two months or so. He's been campaigning before and after getting into office. The message discipline of the cabinet has been restored. He's willing to do anything to win and a tired population that just want Brexit to be over with might let him get away with it.
Add that in to the naturally hostile environment that any Labour leader has to campaign leads me to conclude that Corbyn will have to up his game to go toe to toe with Johnson which is enough to make me more than a little apprehensive about any forthcoming General Election.
* TIL: the myth of Canute was actually about him knowing he could not turn back the tide and rebuking sycophantic courtiers who said otherwise.
Fuck. That. Noise.
Look, Johnson is a disaster in debates. And falls apart when questioned. He's coasted into position using the Old Boy network and old publicity, but he's quickly demonstrated that he's not likeable, on top of having the ideas of stale, mouldy bread.
Johnson's affable public persona has taken a blow ever since he ran away from the leadership position in 2016 and promptly refused to take responsibility for Brexit. The main people behind him now are the ultra-Brexiteers since he's made 'Brexit at any cost' his platform. He was always incoherent, but people aren't really charmed by it any more.
Which begs the question of how he managed to twice win the London mayoral election then. Was Livingstone just that loathed in 2008? Plus, he seems to have effectively dispatched the Brexit Party from the political scene.
1) Ken was that loathed and 2) being mayor isn't widely seen as the politically vital position it actual is (which means electing a buffoon to nix somebody you actively dislike is perceived as a viable option).
People have still to come to terms with the damage Boris caused while he was mayor (see not perceiving it as a vital role).
It's basically the coasting way into higher positions.
Edited by Euodiachloris on Aug 23rd 2019 at 2:16:30 PM
That was a long time before 2016 mate. 2008 was the height of his charm offensive, coming off a series of very successful appearances on HIGNFY and without such a monumental and public climb-down as the aftermath of the 2016 referendum. People will back someone on persona rather than policies quite easily, and Boris doubtlessly banked on it.
And May also managed to "effectively dispatch" UKIP from the scene, only because UKIP/Brexit are basically the party of disaffected hard-right Conservatives, whenever the Tory leader swings the party right (as both May and Boris did early in their tenures) they recoup votes from UKIP/Brexit. Not that it did a lot of good for May.
"Johnson falls apart in debates and or rigorous questioning."
Yes, he does. What will be Cummings solution? - there won't be any debates. We'll only hold interviews with sympathetic journalists or even skip them altogether through the magic of Facebook Live.
If the establishment kicks up a fuss then all the better, that's their Remoanier bias coming through / grandstanding for attention with political stunts such as empty chairing.
"His ideas are old and not effective"
Also true - but they are made to grab headlines, nothing more. We know for example that more jail time is NOT the answer to criminal justice reform - but the old mantra is true, if you are explaining, you are losing.
I'd also point out that Corbyn too isn't as fresh as he once was. We are a long way from Glastonbury and Corbynmania - being on the front lines of the Brexit debate, the row over anti-Semitism in the Labour party and actually being accountable for the things he says have taken the shine off.
Johnson on the other hand has introduced much more dynamism into politics. It feels like progress is being made with Johnson in charge. You may not agree with the direction of travel but when the alternative is to be stuck in neutral making progress in any direction can be preferable.
Right now, Johnson is making the political weather. Yes, he is quite deliberately making storm clouds when he had the choice to make rainbows. But if you are acting and it looks like everyone else is reacting then that gives you the appearance of strength.
All I am trying to say is that if there is to be an election, one masterminded by Vote Leave, then forget facts. Forget detail. It will be about win at all costs and since no one embodies that philosophy more than Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson I am not going to write him off that easily, as much as I hate to admit it.
To be honest, given what an utter dysfunctional trainwreck the Conservative government has been, I think the fact that Labour isn't straight-up dominating the polls is pretty telling for Corbyn's leadership.
Or it speaks of just how effective the smear campaigns against Corbyn have been over the years.
It's not that surprising. Labour wanted to go for an option that would heal the Remain/Leave rift in the country, which unfortunately failed as both sides have become too polarised to countenance any middle ground compromise as an acceptable option. Also, as Wyldchyld pointed out back on page 1538 Corbyn has been under a constant delegitimising and reputation-shredding campaign since his leadership candidacy. We are now in the fifth year of that campaign.
Edited by GoldenKaos on Aug 23rd 2019 at 4:03:01 PM
The smear campaigns against Corbyn were just compared to the ones suffered by Hillary Clinton, but even Clinton was still able to beat Trump in terms of the popular vote. Bad media coverage can only excuse so much.
A big part of the rest of it is probably the Tories/Brexit base popularity, and getting it from both sides by trying to compromise.
A solution that rests on "get a new party leader" is totally ineffective.
Two people can have something in common if they both "suffered injuries". Even if one got concussion and the other lost a leg.
So, Hillary's smear campaign came from conservative media. Fox, Republicans etc. Corbyn's smear campaign is coming from everywhere. Right-wing media (which is about 80% of UK media), centrist and centre-left media (if we count Blairite as centre-left, which I would in today's Overton window), the official state-run media has an obvious Tory bias at the moment... Hillary at least had a good chunk on her side. Corbyn has... Owen Jones and smaller media companies like Novara...
Also, the US Presidential election is even MORE of a 2-horse race than the Westminster party system. Picking third parties is more viable in the UK, so more people do so, splitting the left vote. Less people would vote for the Greens in the US simply because they know it wouldn't make a difference, whereas the Lib Dems and Greens in a GE actually hold seats.
You're comparing apples and oranges, basically.
Edited by GoldenKaos on Aug 23rd 2019 at 4:03:18 PM
Of course Corbyn isn't the only reason people won't vote Labour. I know for a fact that my father is completely serious when he says he won't vote for them because of the Wilson government in the seventies.
Yeah, that "do you want to back to the 70s" rhetoric is certainly a strong factor.
Didn't Tory opposition - including but not limited to Labour - run a 'do you want to go back to the 80s?' campaign in response to that?
Who knows? Opposition (read: left-wing) arguments and talking points have to fight to be heard.
I thought Harold Wilson was generally viewed as a fairly successful Prime Minister. What's so bad about the 70s? Politicially, they certainly seem preferable to the 2010s.
Edited by DrDougsh on Aug 23rd 2019 at 8:57:48 AM
Community Showcase More
How well does it match the trope?