Supporters of Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn have three qualities on which I pass no judgment, other than to point them out. One, they have difficulty listening to anyone who is not in agreement with them, two, they refuse to accept that Corbyn and those who back him are less than totally competent in everything they do, and three, they insist all those big rally turnouts mean they are right, and everyone else is wrong.
But into every world a little rain must fall, and yesterday in Sheffield - part of what used to be dubbed the Peoples’ Republic Of South Yorkshire, such was the reliable and solid nature of the Labour vote - it came pouring down, as Corbyn’s party lost a council by-election in a ward where they had previously scooped all three seats. Worse, they lost it to the Lib Dems, who are supposed to be finished as an electoral force.
Worse again, it is only three weeks since Corbyn addressed a rally of around 2,500 supporters in the city’s Barkers Pool square. Then, we were regaled by Twitter interventions such as “The people of Sheffield on why they back @jeremycorbyn”, that the event “supersedes the biased press that Corbyn is unpopular outside of London. He also attracted huge support in Sheffield”, and “This has to be seen. Literally thousands have turned out to see Jeremy Corbyn at the Sheffield bunker tonight”.
Yeah, see, it wasn’t just a “bunker mentality”. The “people” were behind Jezza. They refused to be brainwashed by the “biased press”, and no doubt the rest of the rotten media. So how did that rally turnout translate when there was a council by-election in the former mining area of Mosborough? Sadly it didn’t. At all. They lost.
The Mirror told “The election was to replace Councillor Isobel Bowler, a longstanding and popular Labour councillor in the Sheffield Ward of Mosborough, who died in June … In May, Labour won all three seats in the Ward, with the Lib Dems languishing in fourth place behind Ukip and the Conservation Party … But in tonight's by-election, Both Labour and Ukip's votes collapsed, and Lib Dem candidate Gail Smith won on an 11 point lead”.
A former mining area. With lots of former local authority housing. That had returned three Labour councillors in May. Losing one of those seats to the Lib Dems. By a margin of eleven and a half points. After that rally where thousands turned out. And it got worse.
The local branch of Momentum - those Corbyn supporters who are supposed to help deliver their leader more of those expected victories - was absent on the night of the by-election. While others were trying to get out the vote, they were organising a phone bank for the Corbyn leadership campaign. What was that about competence?
But all that so many Corbyn supporters will do in response to this post is all too predictable. I’ll be accused of being biased, not being objective or even-handed, there will be disappointment - “I usually like your stuff BUT” - and still no-one will listen. But here goes anyway: Rallies do not mean electoral success, and winning real world elections comes before leadership contests.
Letting the Lib Dems back in Sheffield should sound alarm bells. Instead, there will be more “la la la I can’t hear you”. Theresa May has nothing to fear from this opposition.
34 comments:
Some fair points but you could also have mentioned that the candidate was very anti-Corbyn - see her Twitter particularly before August. Apparently, she also lived 15 miles away whereas the Lib Dem lived in the ward.
"The candidate was very anti-Corbyn". So are Jezza fans voting Lib Dem out of spite? Why don't they oust Frank Field in Birkenhead?
Candidates aren't all going to be squarely behind every party leader. Labour is a broad church - or it needs to be if it wants to gain power.
This is just more excuse making - "some fair points BUT".
'Supporters of Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn have three qualities on which I pass no judgment, other than to point them out. One, they have difficulty listening to anyone who is not in agreement with them, two, they refuse to accept that Corbyn and those who back him are less than totally competent in everything they do, and three, they insist all those big rally turnouts mean they are right, and everyone else is wrong.'
One, no I don't. I'm always debating with friends, family, on the internet. It's great to hear different opinions. I know a whole bunch of Corbyn supporters - my mum, for instance - who are similar.
Two, no I don't. He's made a bunch of cock-ups, has occasionally been muddled, and I'd prefer him to think quicker on his feet.
Three, no I don't. Big rally turnouts mean the base for a support to grow, that's it.
No excuse. Losing any by-election is bad. Labour lost one last week in Stockton. That's bad. They also increased their vote in 6 others that night, one by 32%. That's good.
One of the casualties in this leadership challenge is nuance. Your assuming that all Corbyn supporters - 'they' - think the same is a brilliant example.
I think in the past I would have thought Corbyn was a saviour of the country. He talks sense on a lot of things and I think he is a genuine character - although it's hard enough to get past the media hit job on him to see him as a good guy.
My problem with him is that he seems to be a purist who is content to be in eternal opposition, not letting the distractions of the real world get in the way. I've been disappointed too many times by politics and I'd prefer somebody who will get 30% done of what they want, while compromising their principles on the rest. It's better than getting 100% of SFA.
As for the LibDems - they must be looking at Scotland for a strategy. 45% voted for independence in the referendum. Then 45% voted SNP in the general election. There is a rather pissed off 48% in the UK as a whole at the moment. They won't all go to the LibDems, but it's a way back if they push the message right.
@ John Riches
"Two, no I don't. He's made a bunch of cock-ups, has occasionally been muddled, and I'd prefer him to think quicker on his feet."
Not really a good platform for a politician (and we are talking about politics which is the art of achieving the possible, not just espousing idealist theories) who could be required to deal with some of the toughtest political negotiators around the world let alone the UK or even just the Labour Party?
Must be megaphone season for the ailing parties.
Thats if there isn't an all out ban on public gatherings of any sort.
The little voices can dictate but who's listening?
The green party is on the up and up.
Lab and Tory possible future lies as retired alcoholics in AA.
Or is that the Lib Dems?
We've been hearing a lot of gossip.
Here's your prescription.
Get a fuc***g job!
Ask a Tory which Labour leader they want and they'll say Jeremy.
Any who say otherwise, 'it's not good for democracy to have weak opposition' etc know Jeremy will win so it's just a good chance to look reasonable.
Labour have awful recent history of political harakiri; backing leaders we know will not win an election.
We can bleat about MSM etc etc but that is the political landscape in which we operate. Moaning won't change it. Winning power will.
Rallies are great for those who don't really need change. Those who do - they need power.
I'm a Corbyn supporter and a daily reader of your blog which I greatly admire.
I possess not one of the three qualities you suggest.
This is getting tedious.
Those opposing the "unelectable" Corbyn are looking for someone to lead the party to victory in 2020 and the only people to step forward are Angela Eagle and Owen Smith?
Give me a break.
Anonymous said...@ John Riches
"Two, no I don't. He's made a bunch of cock-ups, has occasionally been muddled, and I'd prefer him to think quicker on his feet."
Not really a good platform for a politician (and we are talking about politics which is the art of achieving the possible, not just espousing idealist theories) who could be required to deal with some of the toughtest political negotiators around the world let alone the UK or even just the Labour Party?
You're right, which is why many 'Corbynistas' - at least, many of the ones I know - don't think it's about him (something that he's said himself, plenty of times). He represents some ideas that many of us agree with, which is why we defend him. Cos if he gets shot down the ideas go with him. I'd be happy for him to shore himself/Labour/the movement up for a year or two, then hand on to somebody else. Maybe Clive Lewis.
I promise you, even at Momentum meetings, plenty of people discuss Corbyn and some of his failings. But when all 'Corbynistas' are painted as one - maniacal, a cult etc - then a) it's false, anyway, and b) it pushes people to be more defensive. As I said, nuance is needed - but it's very difficult when there's constant attacks from as soon as he got elected, and then the coup, etc etc etc...
I'm unclear how we know this result is Corbyn's fault and not the Labour "Coup"'s fault. Hope that isn't too "sticking my fingers in my ears and saying la-la-la".
According to the senior reporter on the Sheffield Star @ChrisBurn_Star the Lib Dem lived locally, the Labour candidate did not.
"Few points on Mosborough by-election result (as local resident) - don't think it is totally fair to put result all down to Corbyn factor."
"Labour candidate was publicly anti-Corbyn, didn't mention him on her leaflets and (most importantly I think) didn't live in Mosborough."
"Whereas Lib Dem's Gail Smith does live in Mosborough. Not unreasonable for people to vote for a local councillor who actually lives locally."
Given the non stop negative press against Corbyn, and the infighting in the Labour Party, it's not much of a surprise to find the average voter not voting Labour though is it?
Ed also had plenty of negative press. He was hauled over the coals just because he looked a bit funny eating a sandwich. It's not something unique to Corbyn. You either learn to deal with it (eg, several MPs never wore caps because it lookes stupid in photos), or you GTFO.
I do find it interesting that criticing Corbyn usually leads to "but Smith is shit!" Yes. Yes he is. Doesn't stop Corbyn from also being dreadful.
And I imagine Tim's view on some of Corbyn's more hard-core fans have come from previous blog posts, which have descended into fairly intense arguments (of which I'll admit I've been involved.) There does seem to be a seperation though between the Corbyn voters who think that he's at least swinging the party to the left, and once he's done that he can hand over to someone more electable, and those who think he should remain leader even if he doesn't get in power as 100% pure principles are more important than compromise and actually winning.
I suspect there's a lot of echo chambers here, on all sides. But all I keep seeing on Twitter is nonsense like this:
https://twitter.com/hackneymomentum/status/774148473440440322
"The test of leader is not to win elections but to challenge party in Parliament and get more active members."
How can you respond to that, apart from banging your head against the desk?
Regardless of one's views on Corbyn, a little perspective is called for here. Labour lost control of Sheffield Council to the Lib Dems in 1999, regained control in 2002, lost it again in 2008, and took control once again in 2011.
Overall, Sheffield Council swings wildly between Labour and Lib Dem. The Tories haven't had a seat on the council since the 1970s!
Whether this tells us much about voting intentions in the next General Election is a bit speculative, to say the least. Local vote can predict national results with a degree of accuracy, but it's worth remembering that locals are only accurate predictors to within five percentage points. Subtract five from the Sheffield Lib Dem lead and add five to Labour, which is the most extreme variation for each, and there's only one percentage point between the two.
This isn't special pleading. Labour definitely lost a council seat. The question is: How significant is this? And the answer is: Who knows.
You seem to be hung up on the idea that big crowds at rallies don't mean anything. You probably have a similar attitude to the tripling of party membership.
Consider this. Supposing the boot was on the other foot? What would Owen Smith supporters be making of 1000s of people in towns up and down the country attending his rallies, instead of the pitiable smatterings around ice-cream vans? If the Tory party had tripled in size in the past year, would that be written off as the Cult of May, or put down to Britain First entryism?
Surely if the result shows anything it is that being anti-Corbyn is not a vote-winning strategy, and neither is this constant refusal by the Labour right wing to respect democratic decisions. They didn't respect the vote the first time Corbyn was elected, they don't respect the referendum decision, and they have made it very clear they won' respect Corbyn being elected again. This is not a good look for people who are standing for election. If you're going doorstep to doorstep effectively saying "I hate Jeremy Corbyn and all his leftie mates, vote Labour!", and you're not even from the neighbourhood, why should anyone want to vote for you?
Trump is also getting record numbers showing up at rallies. It's not Corbyn specific... Historically rally numbers have rarely made any impact on actual voting numbers.
And Sadiq Khan also distanced himself heavily from Corbyn and won, so I'm not buying the argument that Labour lost in Sheffield because their fielded an anti-Corbyn candidate. I'm more worried by how many are taking this as a vote for or against Corbyn specifically, rather than Labour in general. It's becoming a cult of personality.
Disappointing that Zelo Street didn't go into more detail. Apart that the fact this was a loss of a little over 300 votes on a very low 28% turnout, you have ignored the fact the Lib Denm candidate was an extremely popular candidate and if anyone was "crushed" it had to be the Tories decimated vote.
Your claim that the Labour candidate being anti-Corbyn cannot be considered while at the same time trying to link the loss to a Corbyn rally 3 weeks ( which incidentally drew more people than the entire turnout in the Sheffield election(ago is frankly, a bit odd. You are cherry-picking parts that suit your argument when it's almost impossible to translate this by-election result as a vindication of either side.
LiamKav- actually Bernie Sanders rallies outdid Trump rallies in every single case but he didn't have the Trump clown car factor beloved by the media and to compare UK political rallies with a US candidate who has become a focal point for every right wing loony squad is simply bizarre.
This is a whole new ball game: popular rallies are the opposite to what they are (no examination of the crowds needed).
I'd need a lot more proof that large rallies are meaningless before I just accept it because a blogger says I should.
“...winning real world elections comes before leadership contests.”
See, Tim, there’s your problem: mere “political” expediency. Or even a search for a “strong leader” – now where have we heard that stuff before? It isn’t that nobody’s listening, it’s that an overwhelming majority of the Labour Party membership disagree with that kind of “politics.” If you can’t see that it’s you with your fingers in your ears, not those who want to rebuild a party that lost its moral compass. If you want to see where it went, watch a rerun of Blair post-Chilcot.
Blair is a practical example of lost morality and ethics. The kind of politics that abandoned conscience so it could “win elections.” After which public life plummeted to its lowest level yet, swallowed almost whole by the gullible and hopeful. But enough people saw they never wanted that again. In that sense, “Blairism” performed an evolutionary function. It was tried and it failed. It led to the destruction of millions of lives and ancient societies and the dreadful state of our own society.
This is the cause of Corbyn’s support and other developments elsewhere. It’s what happens when enough people ditch propaganda lies and think for themselves. This is a slow and frequently dissatisfying process often subject, as in this case, to sabotage and personal ambition. It quite possibly might lead to a lost election. Political movements have never been any different. Change only happens when there is no other way out, the nature of true democracy. Yes, winning elections is important. But when a society becomes as corrupt as ours it is time to reassert principles. Corbyn is only the start of that process. And of course he has been betrayed by those who helped bring the nation to its knees. He may or may not survive the storm. At least he stands by substantial ethics supported by a substantial majority in the Labour Party. That can’t be said of anyone in New Labour.
Restoration is vital if we are to regain even a smidgeon of social democracy. It will take years to put right. Which means people have to gather and organise, aided by “new” social media. In the meantime overall they will probably be in a minority, though another major economic disaster or war could change that. They will have to contend too with salami-slicing of the economy for the same far right thieves. They will be attacked by the looters and corrupters. Corbyn is already the subject of the most appalling lies. There will be, as there always is, infiltration and betrayal. There will be manufactured “sensations” and diversions. There is nothing new about any of it.
Now, doubtless this will suit the far right. Let them. They will never attain social decency anyway. However, sooner or later enough people will have nothing left to lose. Then all the manufactured lies and sabotage in the world will fail. It might even lead to a return of fascism and “a strong leader.” If so, Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters can at least say they resisted, unlike New Labour apologists.
On which subject, see A Man for All Seasons:
“Wolsey: Let him die without an heir and we’ll have them back again. Let him die without an heir and this ‘peace’ you think so much of will go out like that! Very well then England needs an heir; certain measures, perhaps regrettable, perhaps not – (pompous) there is much that needs reformation, Thomas - (More smiles.) All right, regrettable! But necessary to get us an heir! Now explain how you as Councillor of England can obstruct these measures for the sake of your own private conscience.
More: Well...I believe when statesmen forsake their own private conscience for the sake of their public duties they lead their country by a short route to chaos.”
Nowadays “public duties” means an evil system. Corbyn is no Thomas More, or even Clement Atlee. He is a beginning and he is his own man. Look at those who betray him and ask how many can say the same. Which is why he is supported, and in spite of gerrymandering in the election.
Anonymous, perceptive stuff. Can you put it on a blog - apart from the first para - so people can link to it?
"Disappointing that Zelo Street didn't go into more detail. Apart that the fact this was a loss of a little over 300 votes on a very low 28% turnout, you have ignored the fact the Lib Denm candidate was an extremely popular candidate and if anyone was "crushed" it had to be the Tories decimated vote.
Your claim that the Labour candidate being anti-Corbyn cannot be considered while at the same time trying to link the loss to a Corbyn rally 3 weeks ( which incidentally drew more people than the entire turnout in the Sheffield election(ago is frankly, a bit odd."
So, wait, there were several thousand people who turned up to support Corbyn who wouldn't vote for a Labour party candidate in an election? Why? If it's because she was anti-Corbyn, then who were they voting for? And is no-one worried about how people have become dedicated to one man, rather than a party?
"Blair is a practical example of lost morality and ethics. The kind of politics that abandoned conscience so it could “win elections.” After which public life plummeted to its lowest level yet, swallowed almost whole by the gullible and hopeful. But enough people saw they never wanted that again. In that sense, “Blairism” performed an evolutionary function. It was tried and it failed. It led to the destruction of millions of lives and ancient societies and the dreadful state of our own society."
Again, there is no evidence that Blair fall-out is what caused Labour to lose the last two elections. Most evidence puts it that they weren't trusted on the economy. Blair won. Three times. Massively. Rather than looking at him and working out what worked, what didn't, what had to be abandoned and what could be improved, it's all put in a massive box labelled "Blairite", set on fire and thrown in the rubbish.
"Now, doubtless this will suit the far right. Let them. They will never attain social decency anyway. However, sooner or later enough people will have nothing left to lose. Then all the manufactured lies and sabotage in the world will fail. It might even lead to a return of fascism and “a strong leader.” If so, Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters can at least say they resisted, unlike New Labour apologists."
This is terrifying. The argument that "we might have to go through several years of terribleness in order to get some good" is a horrible one. There's no reason to assume that after two decades of an increasinly right-wing Tory goverment that people will wake up and go "well, that was rubbish. Better give socialism a try". It puts everything on to a romantic ideal of being a revolutionary, rather than a practical desire to fix things now. The Tory goverment have been in uncontested power for a year, and we're already getting the dismantling of the human rights act, the return of grammar schools, the building of an actual fucking wall in Calais. Can you honestly look at that and say "well, we're about to get decades of untold misery, but at least Corbyn kept his principles. Besides, we'll be able to sort all this out in 2050 when the Tory Empire collapses for some reason."
"actually Bernie Sanders rallies outdid Trump rallies in every single case but he didn't have the Trump clown car factor beloved by the media and to compare UK political rallies with a US candidate who has become a focal point for every right wing loony squad is simply bizarre.
This is a whole new ball game: popular rallies are the opposite to what they are (no examination of the crowds needed).
I'd need a lot more proof that large rallies are meaningless before I just accept it because a blogger says I should."
I'm not saying rallies are useless. If they can galvanise people, get large numbers behing a person or party, than can certainly be useful. But Foot and Kinnock both had large rallies, and lost. The reasons for them losing are varied and complex, but it does show that large rally numbers often don't translate to actual votes.
Can somebody explain why those opposing Corbyn haven't shown equal or more opposition to the Tories instead of dividing the party because they are about to be democratically defeated? And why haven't they put stood themselves instead of pushing Owen Smith forward? And why haven't they expelled that right wing thug John Mann?
Appalling, untrustworthy people.
"...instead of dividing the party because they are about to be democratically defeated?"
I dunno. Why do Labour insist on dividing parliament even though they were democratically defeated at the last election? I'm guessing that the rebels have decided that they don't think Labour can win with Corbyn in charge and are rebelling against that. Arguing against something you disagree with is one of the founding blocks of politics.
On the plus side, if you look at recent local election results the Lib Dems are doing well. Given that Labour need the Lib Dems to take back seats in areas like Cornwall where they aren't competitive, it is important. Also looks like Scotland is not about to go independent, which helps with the overall picture! Just need Labour to get a candidate who floating central voters can relate to and we're back in business
Those looking for local excuses for the bad result in Sheffield are in denial. Labour also lost a seat in Stockton the other day, but the bigger picture stuff is devastating. There are the polling numbers for Labour, which have been consistently dire since Corbyn took over (given the tories shambolic performance and the nature of people losing faith in the government of the day, Labour should be miles ahead). Then there are Corbyn's disastrous personal polling numbers. Then there is the hugely worrying data from key marginals. Labour slipped to third behind the tories in Scotland under Corbyn, which is simply unheard of. They couldn't get a majority in Wales. Worse, despite having the expected electoral bounce of being the opposition to the government, they lost seats overall at the last local elections, lost a council and allowed the tories to take another one.
Winning in safe seats is simply not good enough. In our current electoral system, Corbyn simply does not work.
Peculiar one dimensional 'thinking' that. The kind of thing you hear at the end of the bar at any suburban ale house at about 10.30 pm.
So is the notion you can forget the deaths of hundred of thousands and impoverishment of millions because somebody won elections at the guilty nation, which was us. Or more specifically Blair and New Labour. A terrifying level of self-deception.
So is the suggestion that betraying one's own party leadership is more important than opposing a reactionary far right government. Or staying silent in the face of said government.
So is the idea that thirteen years of New Labour government was 'no evidence' it led to electoral defeat.
Very odd. Weird even. An example of how Hitler duped Germany into Nazi madness.
Some people are just willing victims, grateful to Big Brother.
Show me where I said that we should forget the deaths caused by Blair. Show me where I said you should stay silent in the face of a reactionary far right government.
I'll try and explain again. I would love a government that was more left wing than Blair's. However, much more than that, I want a government that is more left wing than the Tories. Corbyn is not going to achieve that, because he is not going to be elected. He can sit with the Green Party, smugly discussing how they kept their principles, watching the Tories reintroduce Grammar Schools and doing nothing to stop it.
"So is the idea that thirteen years of New Labour government was 'no evidence' it led to electoral defeat."
Well, what is the evidence? They were voted in three times. In fact, since they only lost when Brown took over, you could easily say that they lost power because Blair was no longer in charge.
"So is the suggestion that betraying one's own party leadership is more important than opposing a reactionary far right government. "
Corbyn voted against the Labour government on 428 occasions. The democratically elected by an actual majority (of the public, not just Labour Party Members) government. I'm not sure where his supporters get off calling the the rebels "traitors" and "betrayers". He can vote against the leadership because of his conscience, but they can't?
LiamKav, I share your frustration at the Tories not getting it in the neck, and I'm not one of those Corbyn supporters who think he is faultless, far from it. I also think that it's absolutely right that Labour MPs should disagree vehemently with their Leader - we should be a broad church - although some of the undermining right from the start, and constant denigration of the person rather than the policies via social media (the Jamie Reed etc stuff) I think goes a bit far.
However, there are very few people claiming that having large rallies translates to votes; most of what I've seen is that it's evidence of a 'movement', which - I and many hope - are the base for Labour to build on; we'll see of course, but the trajectory for Labour over the past 8-9 years hasn't worked, so let's try a different approach. The reason it doesn't work to link the Sheffield rally to the by-election is because we have no idea who was at the rally - and particularly no idea how many were from Mosborough ward. I was at a Corbyn rally in Brighton (in Regency ward) in August; great turnout, but I have no idea how many were there from East Brighton ward, where we won a by-election with an increased 11% share 5 days later. I don't link the two, because it wouldn't make sense to.
And 'smugly discussing how they kept their principles, watching the Tories reintroduce Grammar Schools and doing nothing to stop it.' Apart from argue against it - as Ashworth has (http://labourlist.org/2016/09/ashworth-leads-stinging-labour-attack-on-mays-plan-for-regressive-grammars/) and where Raynor tabled an urgent question (Corbyn may have been otherwise engaged in a leadership election), what do you think Labour can do about grammar schools at the moment, that they're not doing?
This is what I meant about nuance; your justified concerns that we're not succeeding leads you to assert that Corbyn would do nothing to stop it. Though I see your not a Smith supporter, it does mirror a large part of Smith's attacks - 'Jeremy isn't doing anything to stop grammars/cuts/NHS cutbacks etc', which are totally counterproductive for Labour generally. We can debate whether Corbyn is effective, but giving out this 'smugly doing nothing' thing is untrue and derogatory.
John: thank you. You make fair points. I will admit my frustration about our whole political situation might lead me towards hyberbole. A large part of my impression over Corbyn's inaction comes from the junior doctors strikes earlier in the year. It was the first mass strike by doctors for decades. Hunt was/is universally loathed. The public were on the doctors side. Labour were perfectly poised to stick it to the government, and Corbyn said nothing during PMQs. Cameron must have been ecstatic to have gotten off so easily.
I did share your "the current approach isn't working, let's try something new" thoughts when Corbyn got in. I am just now worried that it's doing more harm than good. Maybe I have judged too quickly. Maybe I am wrong. I hope to god I am.
Corbyn may be many things.
"Smug" isn't one of them.
Cheers Liamkav, I do agree that some of Corbyn's attacks either haven't been there, or haven't hit home (though some of the time he's criticised too much for it; eg I didn't think he needed to follow up on IDS's resignation at PMQs the day after, as many did; the job was done, onto policies...), and his leadership, and the team around him, need to be sharper.
I really hope that there's some unity after this, and that even the MPs who think he's lacking in that area can say 'OK, he's not very good there; let's not make too much of a fuss about it though, get on with our jobs, fight the Tories, and work with - and appreciate - all the new people he's brought to the Party'. Sort of thing. Have a good weekend.
You are all right. "Smug" isn't the right word for Corbyn. I'm struggling to articulate it, but I think my worries started to increase when I saw him on The Last Leg. I thought Russel Crowe (of all people) had a good point when they were discussing why Corbyn just walked away from Cameron rather than talking to him. Corbyn replied that he wasn't interested in talking to Cameron. Crowe pointed out that as leader of the opposition, he shouldn't really just walk away when the leader of the country is talking to you.
"If, theoretically, you become leader of this country, you can’t just look elsewhere!"
I thought it showed Jezza up to be a childish, and also ill-equipped as a leader. It was a very small thing, but such things are what impressions are made of.
Post a Comment