> The deeper question is why was the alternative to Boris and the obvious “more of the same please sir” slow spiral of letting the government rot away or selling it that he and the Tory party stand for… why was the alternative to all that considered to be more “scary”?

I don't know the answer to that but it's a very good question.

There is definitely a strong connection in the UK between right-wing, Oxford educated journalists and Tory politicians. Johnson himself was/is an Oxford educated journalist; he'd been fired for lying by various papers prior to becoming an MP.

Since you ask about Corbyn, I don't see him as similar to Bernie Sanders. He much further to the left but more than that he's unelectable as the author of his own FUD.

It's definitely not his stance on taxing the rich or house prices people worry about.

He's seen as "dangerous" by the great unwashed because he regularly talks about disbanding NATO and appeasing Putin[1]. If you take the view that Putin does what he does because he's an absolute ruler and a megalomaniac then that's a dangerous position.

In general he comes across as someone economical with the truth. E.g. He filmed himself sitting on the floor of a train saying he couldn't get a seat because the train was full[2]... except the train operator release CCTV footage that showed the train was empty at the time of filming. He was trying to make a point by using a lie, that makes him look untrustworthy.

Then there's his alleged association with various terrorist groups. I don't think he's involved with terrorism or even supports those causes but... he keeps turning up in dodgy places, and that makes him look untrustworthy too.

Like the laying of a wreath for the Black September terror group behind the Munich massacre[3]. He says he wasn't involved but just so happened to be photographed in Tunisia. In the same cemetery. At the same time, a few feet away, behind a microphone... and holding a wreath.

And who paid for the trip? We don't know because he didn't declare it. The reporting of that was clearly politically motivated but even with the benefit of the doubt that looks dodgy as hell.

Then there's the people close to Corbyn. Like Diane "Every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us" Abbott[4]. For the sake of argument, you might agree with everything she says but surely you can see why others think she is against their best interests.

Or his brother, Piers Corbyn, the professional conspiracy theorist[5]. It's guilt by association but it doesn't make him look like a safe pair of hands.

Or his backing of Russia after the Salisbury Poisoning attack, or the allegations of antisemitism under his leadership, or... the list goes on and on.

You might think it's all circumstantial or whipped up by right-wing journalists, and let's face it there's a lot of that. Still, there's just too many gaffs to make him electable with the general public. Even when running against someone as blatantly awful as Johnson.

For the record I voted Labour in the last general election but I hated doing it with Corbyn as their leader. I held my nose because I dislike Johnson even more.

Sorry if that's not the answer you were looking for but it's an honest opinion at least. (Sorry for the length of this reply too).

1. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/apr/20/jeremy-corb...

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traingate

3 https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-jeremy-cor...

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diane_Abbott#Political_controv...

5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Corbyn#Promotion_of_cons...