We got an answer from the Johnson v Corbyn debate to the question I asked yesterday as to what would happen if Brexit was taken out if the election. It was, it seems, that Johnson would have nothing to talk about.
Ignore his rudeness, continually talking over Julie Etchingham and ignoring time limits. Ignore too the continual re-hashing of deeply annoying phrases like ‘oven-ready Brexit' and ‘we've got a fantastic deal'. Put aside the multitudinous lies, such as the denial that there will be a trade border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland when glaringly obviously there will be. Instead just look at content.
He was forced to say the NHS was not for sale, when the negotiations are underway. He, almost unbelievably repeated his claim there is a plan to build 40 new hospitals when that is an outright lie. And the only other policy issue he addressed was climate change, where he could not say that this was really the biggest issue facing us, as Etchingham invited him to do. Thereafter it was only cliches on Brexit. There was nothing else.
Jeremy Corbyn, in the circumstances, did better. He still failed to deliver convincingly on Brexit. But on occasion (racism, for example) his passion came through. As it did in the NHS. And he thought better on his feet, without a doubt. That did not mean it was a great performance. It wasn't. A great many direct hits, on lying about hospitals for example, were simply not made. But at least he showed he had other concerns.
That was reflected in the result. YouGov showed 51% for Johnson and 49% for Corbyn. Given the relative standing of their parties and their own popularity that is a considerable success for Corbyn. Reproduced in an election that would deny the Tories a majority, with ease.
This was not a knock out blow. But Johnson was the loser on the night. And people really should be worried that what his performance signals is the reality of his deal. What it actually means is that there will be only one issue in British politics for years. Brexit will not happen in January, or whenever. It will go on, and on, and on. Forget those hospitals. Forget everything. The paralysis of the country will just get worse. And all because of something we simply do not need to do.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Thank you, Richard, you present a much more succinct summary of the debate than the MSM.
It is interesting to note the Tory dirty tricks surrounding this event. They have already been outed for changing their Twitter address to #FactCheckUK, or whatever, but one website – The Skwawkbox – has pointed out that the YouGov poll was apparently timed one hour and ten minutes before the event took place.
Hmm. Interesting…..
Really….
Apparently so, but there will doubtless be some techie explanation for it or else Skwawkbox has its knickers in a twist – https://skwawkbox.org/2019/11/20/video-yougov-snap-poll-saying-johnson-won-debate-shows-time-more-than-1hr-before-debate-took-place.
There was an explanation for the time stamp on the Yougov poll on the Guardian politics page. Apparently the page was originally put up to say “the results of the poll will be on this page” and when the actual poll results were published they were uploaded to the page but the timestamp was not changed.
As I didn’t want to upset my evening, I didn’t watch it but inevitably have checked out the post-debate analysis. So, thanks for yours. Seeing that the widely reported 51-49 poll of 1,200+ respondents was conducted by YouGov one should build in that particular pollster’s bias. According to The Skwawkbox, a much larger poll of 30,000 itv viewers gives a very different picture with 80-20 in favour of Corbyn, which I haven’t yet seen reported in the MSM – https://skwawkbox.org/2019/11/19/8-out-of-10-from-30000-itv-viewers-said-corbyn-won-leaders-debate. Having raked over the ashes and consulted the runes, the 2nd debate might turn out to be more meaningful. However, in the grand scheme of things, I don’t suppose it much matters. For this GE at least, ‘Brexit’ has contaminated the waters of rationality and objectivity.
if ITV’s 30,000 respondents to Paul Brand’s request to decide who they thought won last nights competition are genuinely honest, objective responses from people not predisposed to a predetermined reading of the event, then three things that happened during the candidates’ performances are worth noting:
1 – When Mr C. addressed the climate emergency by inviting people to consider the predicament of third-world poorer countries, the “oh, here he goes..” response from parts of the audience both shocked Corbyn, causing him to look unbelievably at the four audience members responsible for the possibly pre-meditated outburst, and was picked-up by ITV studio microphones. Unhesitatingly, Corbyn moved on to affirm Labour’s planned spending on its ‘green industrial revolution’, i.e. the £250 Billion which it should badge as its “Green Transformation Fund”. If social media and preliminary private polling by the party is to be believed, ITV’s audience demographic (prospective Labour voters in particular) are talking much more the climate issue and Labour’s prioritisation of it, than anyone expected. This is ominously hopeful.
2. The heavily redacted FoI government document on a series of meetings between HMG and US health interests (politicians and lawyers representing US corporates) brandished by Corbyn during the “clash”did more to remind people that the ‘brexit election’ is no such thing, but instead the most important General Election in deciding what sort of country the electorate wish to build for themselves and their children.
3. Paul Brand at ITV invited viewers to inform him who, in their opinion, “won” the discussion. 30,000 responded of which 78% picked Corbyn. The MSM is ignoring this and claiming that the ‘conflict’ was a draw.
In the end, the winner of this election will be the party that addresses the real issues that matter to the electorate. Climate emergency (and the need to spend £250bn on a Green Transformation Plan), inequality (and the pressing need to end austerity and consciously reverse some of its harm) and, of course, closing the brexit interregnum (by re-referring a sensible brexit option to the electorate) are ALL important. People are beginning to realise that brexit obsessiveness a-la-Boris Johnson is an obstacle to a decent future, not an “oven-ready” solution to a badly-worded puzzle.
Question: What do you want for dinner, dog poo or cat poo?
Answer: Neither thanks. I’ll go hungry.
Conclusion: I will cast my vote in such a way as will contribute to ensuring that neither of the two *&$£&*s has a working majority. A paralysed parliament is better than a destructive one.
Regrettably George, one of the two ‘*&$£&*s’ is almost certainly going to form the next Government. I understand your despair, but our wretched FPTP electoral system needs to be changed before each and every vote has the power we would like it to have.
We have to work with what we’ve got. Nihilism and despondency never change anything.
And as other s have noted, the two are not substitutes for each other
More fool you then. The last thing we need is another few years of paralysis. And you seriously think that Labour’s proposals amount to “cat poo” – I suggest you review your morals and look at the poor in this country- they deserve a break.
I couldn’t agree more.
Hold on a second Richard skwakbox says the you gov poll has been found to be somewhat dubious
the time stamp on it was more than 1hour before the tv debate started dodgy to say the least
Here is the link………..
https://skwawkbox.org/2019/11/20/video-yougov-snap-poll-saying-johnson-won-debate-shows-time-more-than-1hr-before-debate-took-place/
furthermore again from skwakbox ITV had the results of a post debate poll on the twitterfeed of paul brand showing that of 30,000 respondats 80% thought Corbyn had won
Link here…..
https://skwawkbox.org/2019/11/19/8-out-of-10-from-30000-itv-viewers-said-corbyn-won-leaders-debate/
An analysis of this has now been posted
It may be plausible
If I am honest I do not think YouGov did fabricate this
And I am a cynic
Last night was if you pardon the pun, about optics for Labour election strategy.
It was about standing a grown up next to a cheeky boy.
Corbyn has better glasses and could out punch most debaters one on one – because he believes what he says. But he stayed focussed (again sorry) on letting Johnson being a one trick pony.
The one hour format was not going to be about policies – the manifestos aren’t out yet.
I stick by my analysis posted yesterday – the tories made the basic error of trying to fight the same election as 2017 – with a slight variation on Brexit means Brexit! Done and Dusted, Do or Die… something like that.
Not the minute, undivided attention, media image management ministrations of Kuenssberg nor the deadcat ploy of the Prince Andrew takeover of the news narrative worked as they expected.
But the racist, antisemite, terrorist lover spectacles began to fall like scales from the VIEWERS eyes.
A couple more prime time outings like that and Bobo will require a mop to get him off the rink.
🙂
I decided not to watch the debate.
I could predict that Johnson would spend most of the time saying “oven-ready Brexit”, “Blue Peter Brexit”, or “Just add hot water to my Brexit deal”. This crap gets me so frustrated that I might have had to throw something at the television – and I don’t want to pay for a new one!
It’s weird how similar Boris Johnson’s campaigning tactic is to Theresa May’s – “Strong and stable” anyone!
Speaking as one of the 4 million saddos who did Neil, you didn’t miss much. Johnson talked over the moderator, who in my opinion needed to be much tougher with him, and of course, as you say, tried to get Brexit into everything.
As usual, he wasn’t called out nearly enough for his lies about Brexit, the NHS etc etc.
As for Corbyn, he may well be right in his policies, but as a debator he is so poor. Any half decent speaker would have laid into Johnson woth a vengeance, calling him out over his lies and his complete lack of suitability for the job of PM.
The whole thing was wretched really.
Neil,
If you didn’t watch it (me neither), Wee Ginger Dug’s summary here will save you a good 50 minutes:
https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2019/11/19/youd-have-been-better-off-watching-eastenders/
WGD obviously slants it from a pro-Scottish Indy perspective and fair enough since both Corbyn and especially Blowjo carried out character assassinations of Sturgeon secure in the knowledge that she’d been denied the right to be there to defend herself and to challenge Johnson on his assertion that he has the right to decide Scotland’s future rather than the Scottish electorate.
I guess neither of us missed anything other than raised blood pressure and despair.
The contempt for Scotland is extraordinary
I sat with a politician this week who described Scotland as ‘the noorth’
I corrected him
‘Oh yes, there’s that border thing’ he said
But he clearly did not care
What I’ve found particularly amusing (well, not really amusing but I’ve chuckled cynically), is the way in which Johnson (Boris is just a persona) refers to his Brexit deal as “Excellent” every time he mentions it in the media. Everyone agrees it isn’t “Excellent”, but I suppose he’s banking on enough people believing him because, let’s face it, your average man on the street really doesn’t have the first clue what makes a good withdrawal agreement.
Just an example of the wider Tory tactic of making everything about soundbites, mostly dishonest ones. I don’t recall such blatant shenanigans from them in the past – temporarily changing their Twitter address last night was so breathtakingly cynical that I can’t quite believe that they are defending it (Cleverly obviously has absolutely no scruples at all).
In fact, it seems a general pattern this time around as the LibDems (now christened FibDems by many) are egregiously manipulating poll results and statistics in their literature, not to mention their fake tactical voting recommendations.
I would say that at least the Labour party don’t seem to have joined in with this blatant dishonesty as yet from what I’ve seen but they’ll probably end up losing out from this in the long run.
The first post-truth UK election?
The fact that we can al call Johnson a liar with impunity tells us all we need to know about where we are
I too could not bear to watch it. My partner did and thought that all Johnson did was to attack Corbyn whilst Corbyn was more grown up and wanted to talk actual policy and change.
She felt that the way Corbyn had dealt with his referendum vote question was poor however.
I think he should say this (I hope someone from Labour is reading):
“I am the leader of a party that – like the country – is split about BREXIT – an issue that really David Cameron should have left well alone as the country has always been split about Europe even when we went in, in the 1970’s. As the Labour Leader, it is not a good idea to be seen supporting one side of my party over the other especially when I am trying to keep the party together to get into power to give the British people a better Government than the one they have now which is also split. Part of that better Government’s job is to negotiate a better deal with Europe that reduces the impact of leaving on real people because we have to have a deal; we also want to offer the British people a referendum on that deal that takes us out. A Labour Government cannot deliver those objectives if it is not united. We know that the British people do not like Governments that waste time falling out with themselves and ignore the needs of the country. That is why it is not a good idea for me to answer that question. If we are to leave, it should be as painless as possible because leaving is a big change and it will cause problems that cannot be ignored or glossed over and my united Government would need to work very hard on those issues”.
Or something like that. Corbyn will also need to watch out for questions about anti-Semitism and his so-called fraternising with terrorists too.
On anti-Semitism he should say:
“Just like in the country as a whole, anti-Semitism exists in the Labour party and it is something we are concerned about and will not tolerate. We are actually OK about being the first party to be referred to the (whatever body investigated them) in order to deal with anti-Semites who get into the party because we needed help to deal with it – it is a very difficult issue to deal with. We also hope that the Prime Minister acts similarly and very soon about his own problems with anti-Islamism in the Conservative party and he has my sympathies – rooting out discrimination is difficult, unpleasant and time consuming but I’m sure Boris is committed to eradicating anti-Islamism long term as we wish to eradicate anti-Semitism from our party”.
He could also say something about how the them and us rhetoric of the Tory party has helped ‘blame game’ politics take over our political discourse I this country – the Tories have got everyone at each other’s throats and Jews are one of the groups unfairly singled out in such times all too often.
On his alleged links with terrorists he should say:
“There is an old saying: ‘Stay close to your friends, but keep your enemies closer’. Why do I say that? Because I am a man of peace. I know that if I take time to listen to those who would be terrorists or be a threat to our country and co-operate with them and compromise -even help them -there will be less violence. That is what politics is about. Politics is about solving problems so that war and violence is avoided. War is sign of the failure of politics and I do not want the Labour party or myself to be a failure. In the future which has already started , we have climate change and also a reduction in world resources. It is better that human beings work together in that future because the alternative is only war and that is a hard choice because it will be your loved ones fighting in it as well as mine.
But also, if I have to take the decision to go to war, or if I have to authorise the pressing of that button I want to know that I am sending your children, your parents, your brothers and sisters, aunties and uncles into battle for a good well proven reason in the defence of this country – not because we are supporting another country’s objectives and only when all political options have been exhausted to their absolute limit. I will not sell the lives of British cheaply – ever”.
I hope these are useful. It is certainly what I would like to hear.
It is very worrying that already we are being programmed by the MSM to see Corbyn as the weaker one in all of this. And I too have heard about the false fact check business – as John Crace of the Guardian would say – ‘Classic Dom’.
But this is a deeply divided country that has been engrossed and operating I think since 2010 in some sort of civil war type society mode. It is not good and like all wars, the truth is the first casualty.
Mr Pilgrim I agree with what you have written. Mr Corbyn may not be everybody’s friend but he describes a reality of this country today and is aware of the MSM and the criticism he has to endure. I admit he does not inspire but whatever he does or says will be picked on, criticised and scrutinised whereas Mr Johnson can say anything without question.
I know I am a sad so and so but whatever Mr Johnson says there is no positivism, dynamism and get up and go but an empty realism that this country has lost its dream.
The YouGov poll was the only one of 5 polls to show Johnson as winning, and then only marginally. A full round-up of polls is as follows:
Britain Elects (sample size 33,000) – Corbyn 57%, Johnson 28%
ITV (sample size 30,000) – Corbyn 78%, Johnson 22%
Martyn Lewis (23,000) – Corbyn 46% Johnson 25%
The Times (8,000) – Corbyn 63% Johnson 37%
You Gov (1,646) – Corbyn 49% Johnson 51%
I don’t know if the other 4 polls were a representative sample of not, but the overall picture seems clear.
Corbyn also won by about 20 points with *undecided* voters on YouGov. I’d say the night was a considerable success for Jeremy. RIchard is right that Jeremy didn’t completely hit it out of the park and he should have done better on Brexit. But Johnson is a waffling one-trick pony. If Corbyn sharpens things up for the 2nd debate he could well turn things completely around (presumably the Tories’ “Fact Check UK” stunt is a strict one-off!)
Thanks
Fascinating
Nice one Howard.
Yes, I saw those polls. No doubt Corbyn & Johnson will have seen them too by the 2nd debate and will correct their positions to improve on these results.
I only read reports of the first debate, couldn’t bear to sit and watch Johnson for an hour. I value my (relative) sanity. I like waffles, but of the sweet kind.
Corbyn should expose and attack the lies more by the sound of it. There’s plenty of meat there. Why did he hold back…?
He won’t do well on Brexit, not in the next debate either, he’ll only sound convincing on what he believes in, and will not want to antagonise his Lexit supporters.
The trouble is Brexit is Johnson’s only horse, which he’ll flog to death. Corbyn will daydream of another race while he does it. What a mediocre pair.
Trying to remain positive with all this is a challenge, my only hope is to see Johnson defeated by an alliance of adults.
I came across the 1975 Panorama debate on Europe between Tony Benn and Roy Jenkins yesterday, and was reminded of how intelligent and articulate politicians used to oppose each other with detailed, poised, developed arguments, and vision.
Even while disagreeing with some of what was said, on both sides, I found myself challenged and informed.
Yet the seventies is really not an era of nostalgia for me.
Oh well, we battle on with poor 2019 as it is.
Indeed…..
Corbyn does not do personal assassination. he does not believe in attacking people individually. So he did not leap down Johnson’s throat and expose each and every one of his lies. Partly he assumes that people can do that for themselves. This trait makes him a great human being. Whether it also makes him a great party leader is arguable. But his primary attraction is that he is true to his principles. He can do nothing else.
Thanks, for your analysis of the debate. I couldn’t bear to watch!
As to poll results it seems to depend upon who did them.
I have no idea if these figures are correct (rarely trust anything these days, unless check).
Assuming they are right Corbyn did come out on top, apart from YouGov’s results which took the smallest poll.
*However, noting two results do not add up to 100% of the votes taken – Either the math is not good, or people were undecided, perhaps. I’m not well up on how such polls are conducted.
Britain Elecs 33,000 votes
Corbyn 57% Johnson 28%*
Paul Brand ITV 30,000 votes
Corbyn 78% Johnson 22%
Martin Lewis 23,000
Corbyn 47% Johnson 25%*
The Times 8,000 votes
Corbyn 63% Johnson 37%
YouGov 1,646 votes
Corbyn 49% Johnson 51%
I watched only small sections of the ‘debate’ as I was channel hopping and couldn’t put my other half through watching it all.
I agree that Jeremy came across as the much more measured of the two, BUT, regardless of whatever polls say, I do not think Boris and the Tory party are particularly bothered by the reasonable thinking person; they will simply hoover up as much of the normally Labour leave vote as they can, whilst holding onto the Tory heartland.
Yes, the more Boris gets out and about, the more he is exposed, but people do warm to him and are ready to forgive at almost every opportunity. Pilgrim Sight (above) suggests what Jeremy should say and that is quite long and considered. Jeremy needs some ‘one liners’ that capture the essence of what he wants to say about the NHS, transport, education etc. – from which he can then expand – some parables for modern times perhaps?
He might start with an oven ready turkey and describe just how much is involved in getting a Christmas meal on the table….
Prentil
If you actually speak what I wrote, its not that long – honest. Rehearsed, sub edited even – it could be delivered with the right sort of gravitas and emphasis to make the point.
One liners do not constitute debates do they? Next time Corbyn needs to reel out the facts of 10 years of Tory mismanagement and cruelty. That is all I would add.
It pains me however to see many commentators already disparaging Corbyn when there is no real proof that he has done any harm to anyone.
The hatchet job that has been done on Corbyn has really been done very well, as it was with young Miliband. All it does is rob people of the opportunity to try something different – take a punt. They would rather stick with the devil they know even though they must know that their lives can’t really improve as a result. Or do they? It’s hard to know anymore.
I certainly don’t trust You Gov polls on any subject to be neutral or objective.
They know the political leanings of their panel and they can select the participants to give a result they have predetermined.
The use of the title ‘You Gov’ is chosen to give a totally unjustified air of official authority to the published results and the fact that their poll results are so far adrift from the others is unsurprising to me.
Why any respectable MSM sources publish their results is a mystery to me.
This is an insidious organisation and though what they do is probably not illegal (it should be) the use of the spurious ‘You Gov’ moniker should be forbidden at the earliest opportunity.