Yep, this.

So you think it was a bad speech?
If so why and what you have done differently?

Its not necessarily a bad speech in a vacuum.

Its just not the time for that speech, I would not have introduced any Corbyn blames the UK for terrorist killing of little children elements, his line about austerity should stop at the door to the hospital and the police station should have been the basis and scope for the whole speech.

He'd have been called out as a hypocrite by the usual suspects if he hadn't said it.
I think it was honest, well written and well delivered.

Well yea being one of the choir it preaches too, you would like it.

How does he get accused of hypocrisy?

Is that accusation worse than the accusation that he blames the UK for children being killed?

Honest. lol.

He is trying to be elected, there were plenty of truths he could have exposed to greater effect. Truths about cuts.

I think the take away point from trump brexit etc is that people are ****ing moronic and super easily swayed by bull****. Like we thought that was the case before but now it's 1000% worse. lefty pols need to start bull****ting as much if not more than the right wingers because the right have the entire media ecosystem from the daily mail on down to back their bull**** up. Just promise everything unicorns and rainbows and a chicken in every pot. Just win first then do what you can. Consistency, honour all that stuff is 100% pointless in the modern world we need to stop giving the public the benefit of the doubt that they can be swayed by persuasive argument, facts or logic. Just appeal straight to the amygdala always. Otherwise its a permanent right wing majority and we'll lose everything.

Seriously? The public didn't vote the way I thought they should so they're morons?

Basically yes.

The one party state says 'Hi'.

I'm under no delusions that the good guys are getting wrecked. I'm saying they need to start fighting as dirty as the bad guys to stop that from happening so badly.

Lol 'the good guys'. Corbyn speaks well on occasion, I'll concede you that, but he's a fundamentally clueless unreconstructed trendy at his core.

Anyone who would think that Diane Abbott is an appropriate appointee for Home Secratary is absolutely delusional.

Come on, 'the good guys'?

As you know I agree with the argument, but I'm really not sure about the timing.

Labour has made some spectacular progress in the polls (that's the average of all polls not just this 5-pointer) on social issues.

This speech needs to be made...after he's elected. Right now it is one of an increasingly small number of issues on which the Tories enjoy a huge advantage. Opinion won't change on this overnight.

Why am I not surprised by the two posters of whom 99% of their posting is reciting Daily Mail cliches being challenged by that classification.

Taking money from the poor and vulnerable and giving it to the rich is essentially evil. Helping the poor is essentially good. It is a simple and obvious point.

Your opinion of the personalities of politicians is irrelevant to anything. I'd probably get on much better with Teresa May than Dianne Abbot, but I know Teresa May's policies will indirectly kill desperate people.

Gin and Tonic and Die Bitter:

I disagree with you guys but it's based on intuition more than anything.
What you are saying would be true if this was a standard Labour candidate. But I feel that given that this is Corbyn we are talking about , he would look weak and dishonest if he didn't talk about it.

The ideal thing would be to have a candidate with a better foreign policy in the first place.

I'm not sure if the experience of Tony Blair made everybody in Britain believe that politics is always about moving to the center or if I'm clueless about how the undecided voter in the close constituencies think.

Going to discount the intuition of someone who does not even live in the UK.

You are just naive of the forces arrayed against Corbyn and how this is giving them ammunition that did not need to be given.

In general I agree with you. On this forum me and Tom have mostly been making the point that no one will vote for an unprincipled candidate who lacks conviction whatever their policies.

However, there is a very limited amount of time to get Labour's message across. Naturally it would be best to focus on those issues where Labour has most popularity in that very limited time-frame.

General elections are all about trying to force the conversation into an area where your party is strong and the enemy is weak. Labour has managed to do that really really well.

Till now.

Not really, its much more complex than that. There are so many variables involved and so on.
First of all elections are also about showing a strong set of personal traits. In fact some authors argue that elections are about personal traits first and policies second(although I dont agree with that).

Im just not convinced by the logic being used ITT, I think the general framework being used is wrong and that is true whether its an election in UK or an election in Chile.

My main disagreement is basically the idea that people only vote because of policy and not personality. The arguments being used ITT against Corbyn speech have the implicit assumption that people dont value stuff like passion, honesty and so on.

When is there next an election in your country? I will be sure to step in with a bunch of remote, naive, finger million miles from a countries pulse observations.

They are in November, I dont mind your observations though if they are well thought and you have a proper framework. That is why I pay attention to what The Economist says about Chile.

Im not going to get upset because somebody on the Internet disagrees with me, lol.