Corbyn may benefit from the fact that no one's likely to emerge unscathed after their interview with Neil...but that just wasn't very good for someone who's supposed to be on the verge of being the country's next PM.
I feel like he's got a habit of trying to contextualise every single issue when a simple answer will do, in a way which ends up making him just as bad, if not worse, than other politicians renowned for refusing to answer questions. The WASPI question, or the ISIS question, were perfect examples. On the former, he was correct to say that it's a moral issue and that the government should therefore pay it...but Neil had made it quite clear he already knew the why and wanted to know the how instead. Even if Corbyn wasn't entirely convinced by his own answer a short, succinct and simple response would have come across better than what instead seemed like him dodging the question instead. The ISIS question was similar - instead of a gung-ho approach is some cases Corbyn's perfectly right to suggest that it's best to consider all options and then come to a rational decision. Indeed, if it's possible to capture the hypothetical leader of ISIS then it's probably advisable to do so. But the question was quite clearly asking him whether he'd kill an ISIS leader if it was the best option, and there was no reason for him not to simply say 'yes'. The question was a bit of a silly, overstretched what-if hypothetical, but the answer was obvious.
I don't think he came across well when he asked why Neil hadn't asked questions about poverty or austerity. Ultimately it's the job of political journalists and interviewers to grill politicians on their own individual platforms. They're not there to simply give party leaders a chance to restate their manifesto without interference. Boris will likely get quizzed on austerity and poverty because his role in government is more closely intertwined with that. We know Corbyn doesn't like the Tories and doesn't support austerity. That's obvious. The natural route - and the right route - for any interviewer to go down is to instead press Corbyn, or any other party leader, on what they might struggle with, highlight where their contradictions and flaws might lie. Labour do (I'd argue) have the moral high-ground compared to the Tories because the Tories have perpetrated inhumane policies on the country for years and Labour are attempting to alleviate that. But you get the impression the party are sometimes baffled and frustrated the country and media haven't just ran with this message wholesale, when the reality is they're just not doing a very good job at selling their own vision to the public.
I feel like he's got a habit of trying to contextualise every single issue when a simple answer will do, in a way which ends up making him just as bad, if not worse, than other politicians renowned for refusing to answer questions. The WASPI question, or the ISIS question, were perfect examples. On the former, he was correct to say that it's a moral issue and that the government should therefore pay it...but Neil had made it quite clear he already knew the why and wanted to know the how instead. Even if Corbyn wasn't entirely convinced by his own answer a short, succinct and simple response would have come across better than what instead seemed like him dodging the question instead. The ISIS question was similar - instead of a gung-ho approach is some cases Corbyn's perfectly right to suggest that it's best to consider all options and then come to a rational decision. Indeed, if it's possible to capture the hypothetical leader of ISIS then it's probably advisable to do so. But the question was quite clearly asking him whether he'd kill an ISIS leader if it was the best option, and there was no reason for him not to simply say 'yes'. The question was a bit of a silly, overstretched what-if hypothetical, but the answer was obvious.
I don't think he came across well when he asked why Neil hadn't asked questions about poverty or austerity. Ultimately it's the job of political journalists and interviewers to grill politicians on their own individual platforms. They're not there to simply give party leaders a chance to restate their manifesto without interference. Boris will likely get quizzed on austerity and poverty because his role in government is more closely intertwined with that. We know Corbyn doesn't like the Tories and doesn't support austerity. That's obvious. The natural route - and the right route - for any interviewer to go down is to instead press Corbyn, or any other party leader, on what they might struggle with, highlight where their contradictions and flaws might lie. Labour do (I'd argue) have the moral high-ground compared to the Tories because the Tories have perpetrated inhumane policies on the country for years and Labour are attempting to alleviate that. But you get the impression the party are sometimes baffled and frustrated the country and media haven't just ran with this message wholesale, when the reality is they're just not doing a very good job at selling their own vision to the public.
I'm in.