OK, I'm going to try and answer several things in one post. Hold tight, everyone.
I don't get it... I'm missing the joke here.
How much do you feel that you are able to communicate with people when you canvass? I mean, can you explain that doing BJ's brexit deal will just be the first step in a long and depressing process and does that ever get through? Or do they just say "Fuck Corbyn and get brexit done!" and slam the door in your face? Does anyone ever say "Oh, that's actually a good point now you say it"? I suppose the hope is that maybe they will later.
(although this is also a reply to several of subvert's posts)
As subvert says, it's not really ha-ha funny. Sort of sardonically, darkly humorous, or would be, if there weren't so much at stake. My point is that ever since Corbyn became leader, probably the biggest wedge dividing him and his closest supporters on one side and the majority of Labour party members, MPs and historic or potential voters on the other has been Corbyn's lifelong opposition to European integration (bear in mind he opposed the EEC long before the EU even existed). Now one of Corbyn's great strengths is that he is, undeniably, incredibly principled, and is essentially unable to say something if he doesn't wholeheartedly believe in it.
Now to be fair to him, he has moderated that impulse, and arrived at a compromise 'soft Brexit' position that, if you were a bit naive, you might think would have at least some appeal to people on both sides. But it isn't, at all. Remainers don't want it because it's unequivocally a worse deal than we have now, and there are still open questions about fundamental principles such as freedom of movement. Moreover, I think a lot of progressives see it simply as giving in to xenophobia and misinformation - Corbyn bears some blame for this because he's sympathetic to people blaming all the UK's economic ills on the EU, which literally means letting the Tories off the hook for the mess they've created (or drastically worsened) over the last decade.
Leavers, on the other hand, aren't convinced either, because most of them say "Leave means Leave" and don't want a deal that they see as "Remain in all but name". But opposition to Corbyn for *whatever* reason (see below) would *still* trump any attempt to appeal to Leave voters, I think, even if Labour literally took a carbon copy of the Tory or even BXP policy on Brexit (to the extent that such a thing exists).
And the further Labour strays from the position held by most progressive voters, voters who either usually do vote Labour or might consider it - that Brexit is a fucking catastrophe and should be stopped by any means necessary that are still compatible with parliamentary democracy - the more unappealing Labour looks, and the more votes they're going to leak to the Lib Dems, Greens, anti-Brexit independents and the regional nationalist parties. Whereas progressive voters, who are overwhelmingly pro-EU or at least anti-Brexit, would flock to a Labour party that both had a strong social-democratic manifesto *and* had supported a second referendum from day 1 with a strong preference for Remain, or "Remain and reform".
To answer Rich's other questions: it's tricky, you can't get too bogged down in detail either because people simply don't follow you, or get arsey, or because it takes too long. One of the councillors I was with today did get spoken to very sharply, borderline yelled at, by a very angry pro-Brexit guy. I guess for him, Corbyn isn't Brexity enough? I dunno. One man I spoke to said he voted Remain but thinks we should leave because Leave won the vote, which seems like taking a sense of fair play to self-defeating levels. Lots of people say they want it "over with", but either don't know or choose to ignore the many years of negotiations that would follow. Some people are amenable to discussion, of course. It's always interesting though.
Why do some insist that “we need someone better than Jeremy”? You think the press would be softer on someone else? We found the gentlest teetotalling vegan in the world who hands out jam he made from fruits on his allotment & they convinced lots of people he’s a demon. Get a grip.
So, here's the $64k question: Why is Jeremy Corbyn so unpopular? I think three general possible classes of reason can be put forward:
1) The argument most commonly put forward by Corbyites is "It's the media, duh". Now I've been at some pains to point out that I'm well aware of the generally right-wing bias of most of the newspapers, as well as the BBC. They don't particularly want any Labour government and they certainly don't want one that's going to be well to the left of the last Labour government. But to follow this line of argument, if this were the sole reason for opposition to Corbyn, then it would also have turned people against the policies Labour has adopted under Corbyn. The thing is, it hasn't:
a majority of people support eight out of nine of Corbyn's key policies. luka should look away now, because I'm going to use the f-word, but it's simply factually incorrect to say "People are just too right-wing to accept Corbyn's lefty policies".
Further, there's the problem of definition creep in that sketchy phrase, "the mainstream media". It's often used interchangeably with the "Tory press" or similar phrases, as if to imply that liberal and leftist news sources simply don't exist. But I've noticed it being used not only for the Tory papers and the BBC but also the Independent, Guardian/Observer and even the New Statesman - in fact any publication that features articles mentioning Labour or Corbyn that aren't by Owen Jones or Ash Sarkar. As if the Sun has anything in common with the fucking New Statesman! There's a danger in "pro-Corbyn" being adopted as the *definition* of "left-wing", so that even a progressive publication such as TNS can be dismissed as "Blairite" or "Tory" for containing any criticism of Corbyn, even if from someone with impeccable progressive credentials.
2) Then there's the possibility that some people have well-informed and well-reasoned arguments against some of Corbyn's principles that should perhaps be listened to. By far the most important of these is the ever-present accusations of antisemitism, or if you prefer (and many people put it in these terms), an excessive tolerance for antisemitism in other figures he regards as comrades, whether focusing on criticism of "bankers" (Corbyn's shorthand for everything that's wrong with capitalism), or of Israel. Now you've made your stance on this pretty clear, so all I can really do is reiterate a point I've made before, namely: if it's not OK for white people to dismiss claims of racism by black people, why is it OK for non-Jews to dismiss claims of racism made by Jews? Surely to dismiss these claims just adds to the racism? I'm not Jewish myself, nor do I have any Jewish in-laws or close friends, but it's for that exact reason that I don't feel it's my place to dismiss the problem. And yes, there are Jews who support Corbyn, and I'm not dismissing them, either. But the asymmetry in numbers is startling. There are, after all, Muslims who vote Tory and black and Hispanic Americans who love Trump.
This aspect crosses over with point 1) above because yes, there are bad-faith 'concern trolling' articles by right-wing non-Jews who don't really care about antisemitism at all but love using it as ammo. But you need to credit Jews, especially progressive Jews, with the intelligence to spot this for themselves. And with respect to your claim that the press would be just as hostile to anyone else, bear in mind that outside of the likes of InfoWars and the like, it's not common for news stories to have literally no basis in reality whatsoever. Even claims made by the Daily Mail are usually based on something that really happened, even if they give a totally one-sided account, or exaggerate part of it, or fail to give important context, or wildly extrapolate. But consider: there hasn't been a media brouhaha about Keir Starmer endorsing a racist mural, because AFAIK, no such event has ever occurred. Tom Watson has never been accused of making baseless claims about Israel, because he hasn't. So actually, yes, I think no shortage of candidates could be found to the lead the party who would, if they didn't have total immunity, at least be much less susceptible to claims of this sort.
3) Finally there's the fact that Corbyn just smells wrong, so to speak, for a lot of people. You mention his veganism and teetotalism - in a sense, you've hit the nail right on the head. There may well be something in the British psyche that is just inimical to a lifestyle and mentality that Corbyn represents - self-denying, somewhat ascetic, obviously and conventionally virtuous. His demeanour, I think, reminds a lot of people of a somewhat strict and pedantic teacher who's permanently disappointed in them. The righteousness, which obviously attracts some people, can easily look like sanctimony. Boris Johnson, with his affairs, illegitimate kids, admissions of drug use and quite possibly frequent public intoxication, couldn't be more different. People think he'd be fun to go on the razz with.
What can be done about this, I don't know. Yeah it'd be great if we all voted for policies and not personalities, but what can you do?
Anyway, we seem to have had a rapprochement of sorts, so I'll hold off from calling you a deranged cultist if you can try not to call me a troll and a moron again? ❌