Registered On: September 7, 2015
Not once have I said that the public follow this in detail. I have said that it is surface level, probably. For instance, they see someone excusing Russia for the Skripals and think “he’s pro-Russia, him, and not going to defend our national security.” Same with anti-Semitism. I am sure they’re not following every detail, but they will think “how has he not got a hold on the situation after many years? Can’t be a strong leader or one willing to solve the situation.” I’ve said this many times in this thread, so I don’t know where this idea has come that I think the public are fully clued up.
Corbyn should be the past, but he keeps putting himself in a position where he is in focus. Through this the party appears weak, and that is what I think matters for the public, as I keep saying. Starmer had Corbyn suspended, he has been readmitted. To the public this makes it seem like Starmer hasn’t got a hold on the party and is therefore weak. This is not a good look, no matter what knowledge the public have.
If they were more interested in scruffiness, why did the polling drop after his real problems? I think it’s fantasy to think that his inability to handle his problems had no effect but media fuss over scruffy clothes was the real reason why people didn’t like him.
As for Brexit, which was an issue, it would have made no difference. I think it would be out of touch to think that someone who was seen as an IRA sympathiser or weak on national security was going to be popular if it wasn’t for media articles on scruffy clothing or a more Johnsonite Brexit policy. And the problem is that he created the impression that he was those things.