I normally love watching Lord Sugar's straight-talking nature, but I just thought he was dreadful in this interview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aCMtFgE-E8

To start with, his main gripe with Jeremy Corbyn seems to be that he isn't well-known enough - I don't think that should be a problem, so long as he does well as a politician. He apparently hasn't actually read much about him, his knowledge seems to have been gleaned from the mainstream media. And I don't see why he thinks that there isn't a need to protect the population - when we have people living in poverty in one of the richest nations of the world, I really don't understand how he has reached that conclusion.

He just strikes me as being out-of-touch, and I never thought I'd say that about him. In the past, he has always seemed very altruistic, charitable with his time and understanding of the class struggles in this country. He has always had more sympathy with people from tough backgrounds on The Apprentice.

Besides this, he seems very half-hearted. He's stuttering a lot and there's a lot of umming and arring. He doesn't sound like he really believes what he's saying; in fact, he comes across as just repeating what he's heard, without having bothered to think critically about it.

Really not impressed!

I haven't seen this but I guess what he's like, since he started posting on twitter, he just seems to spout endless drivel, not caring if he what he's saying has any basis.

As a Spurs fan, I have to hold Sugar in great esteem, without his money, we'd have gone under in the early 90's, it's because of Sugar that I still have a team to support, however it is hard to respect him sometimes.

On a personal level, I think 'out of touch' certainly applies to him, and that is something that I've gleaned from works of his that I've read.

I'll watch the interview.

Well I've watched it and it's not bad like I expected. He's just stating his personal opinion - he's no longer a member of the Labour Party anyway.

I think the reason he sounds half-hearted is that he is just not an outgoing person on these kind of interviews. He's really only been in the media for 10 years.

But his opinion is... what, exactly? There doesn't seem to be a reason for his opinions in the slightest. I feel like he's just repeating rhetoric without any rhyme or reason behind it, and that is surely unfair. If you're going to be negative about someone in the public eye, there needs to be a clear reason for one's distaste, I think. 'No one knew who that person was four months ago' is not a good reason - at the end of the coming series, I could use that very same sentence to complain about whoever the winner is, and it would make just as much sense.

You make good points. But his opinions are just based on observations I guess. He doesn't need a real 'reason'.

Well in that case, I don't think he should be going on television and stating them. Being opinionated and public about that is great, but if you don't really know enough about what you're talking about, I think that's quite dangerous. His viewpoint could influence people into believing something that they actually wouldn't believe if they did some independent research. Many, many of my opinions are on the Internet, but only those that I actually have invested my time into finding out about first, and I'm not even a public figure as Lord Sugar is.

He wasn't on it to discuss Labour though, he was just asked about it. Tbh you're just assuming that he doesn't know what he's talking about. Everyone's entitled to an opinion, and it is irrelevant whether people follow.

I think it's a reasonable assumption, if someone complains that they don't like someone, and the first reason for that is 'they haven't been known very long' and the second reason suggests that no one lives in poverty in the UK today.

I don't think he explicitly said that did he?

And perhaps what he was trying to say with regards to him not being known, is that he doesn't have a long-term high profile, which could be a hindrance.

Hmm, I suppose.

Without wishing to force my political views onto this forum, from what I have seen Jeremy Corbyn's popularity surge represents a movement from the oppressed in society, those who have been under-represented for too long standing up and taking back control. I think that him not having a long-term high profile could be a hindrance when referring to other politicians, but when someone has become this popular in such a short space of time, is more impressive than anything else.

The mainstream media seem to have their own issues with Corbyn, and I feel like Sugar is just repeating what he has read than really forming his own conclusions. That is, of course, my own belief, but it is a conclusion that I have come to by watching and observing that interview, as I feel that he really does not come across as very self-assurred or clear on what his opinions actually are.

As someone who's followed his career and the man since the 80s I'm sorry to say OP that imho almost all your positive prior impressions of Sugar are wrong.

Elaborate?

While altruistic being charitable can give people access to nice tax breaks so let's say that situation always has a benefit to some of the super rich.

Also Labour's business friends were only hanging around them when they weren't left wing anymore, all business leaders of Sugar's standing are going to hate Corbyn, same with the business orientated Democrats and Bernie Sanders in the US. When a legit left-winger appears they vehemently attack them which proves the parties were not left wing before hand due to the political spectrum being shifted to the right since the 80s.

He also always comes across totally anti-intellectual like many big business types so quoting any kind of statistics or studies won't influence him either as those kinds of research aren't profit generating.

Interesting! Some well-put food for thought there, thank you.

All I can say is that I have really lost some of the respect that I had for Lord Sugar on this one, which is a shame because in the past he has been someone that I have had quite a lot of time for. I haven't always fully agreed with his opinions, but I have understood how they have been formed and why he has come to certain conclusions. But I suppose we'll have to see how he continues to react to things that happen over the next several months and years.

I've never overly liked him as I think he still takes the show too seriously more than anything and his dismissive attitudes to candidates who have degrees. Which has lead to them being fired and morons being kept past their sell-by dates because they are more "grafters".

What Sugar doesn't realize is that smart work not hard work is what is actually productive, I could work super hard breaking rocks in my back garden, is that productive? No. Just because someone puts in loads of hard work doesn't mean they've worked in a smart or efficient manner.

Like the Bill Gates said, "I choose a lazy person to do a hard job. Because a lazy person will find an easy way to do it". This kind of sums up smart work and I feel The Apprentice and Sugar don't value that.

Also I feel the show is way too salesperson heavy compared with it's US equivalent.

Hmm, I'm not so sure that I agree with that. There have actually been quite a few winners with degrees. I can't remember who they are (pretty sure Simon is one) but someone counted them all up on here a while back.

As for the hard work versus smart work thing, I think that's a flaw in the format. Most of the tasks are only designed to create success over a few days rather than long-term, and anyway it's not representative of how things would be in the real world because people act differently in front of a camera. If I was passing somewhere that The Apprentice was being filmed, I'd probably buy something from them even if I didn't want it, just to get the chance to meet the candidates and see what they're doing. We also see Lord Sugar criticising people who spend all their time in the back room - they may be doing hard work, but they're told that they are hiding.

When it was a job, his choices had varying degrees of success, but since the prize has changed to an investment, all of his winners seem to have been pretty successful in their ventures, so it's hard to say that he's chosen the wrong people.

I know a lot of winners have degrees but he often uses the "have you ever had an actual job" line to people who are recently graduated.

The format is flawed in how there is no incentive to create a sustainable business model, last year with the candles was a great example, Roisin went with a more expensive candle that wasn't going to burn and would likely have seen more repeat business but lost due to costs.

I actually think being on the BBC holds the show back a bit as product placement isn't allowed. The US series relies a lot on external companies and brands setting tasks involving marketing, product development, advertising, and event management rather than just sales which is all the UK version is about most weeks.

Tim, Simon, Yasmina, Tom, Ricky and Leah all have degrees, Michelle, Lee (infamously), Stella and Mark all don't.

Sugar has picked on people for being "overeducated" before (although it's not just him - Margaret was brutal about Chris Bates' "academic obsession") but I think it's often grasping at straws to give a bigger reason to fire people he would have fired anyway. I haven't really taken his stated reasoning seriously since he told Glenn he was being fired because he could never see himself going into business with an engineer......and then went into business with an engineer a few weeks later. He just talks to have something to say half the time.

I think my all-time favourite thing you have ever written was when he said to Navdeep, 'I've had a lot of very eloquent people in here who are very good at presentations and making speeches', as if that made her less impressive. And you said, 'Yes, you chose won of them to win last year.' Zara is my all-time favourite candidate, but that made me chortle! I wonder how he would have reacted had Navdeep pointed that out?

It is quite possible that you are right and he does just talk to have something to say. But does anyone ever challenge that? You know what they say... 'It is better to keep one's mouth shut and let people believe you are a fool, than open it and remove all doubt.'

He contradicts himself almost on a weekly basis and blusters his way out of it when he's caught out, Felipe's 'skeleton' incident last year is proof of what. I'll never forget the Raef firing, for me, that was when Sugar jumped the shark, to keep Michael in ahead of him was sheer lunacy.

I admire anyone who can start off with nothing and then work hard and make a few million, I wish I knew how.

What was wrong with Felipe's skeleton incident? I thought that was fair. Although the materials were not specified, it did have to be anatomically correct. As that skeleton had not been built, it was not anatomically correct. They'd brought the materials to create a skeleton, but not a skeleton. I liked the analogy of, 'You wouldn't bring someone a box of sugar, eggs and butter and call it a cake'.

To keep Michael (self proclaimed Jewish boy) when he hadn't a clue what a kosher chicken was would have been enough for me, I can't stand basic stupidity particularly as he tried playing up his Jewishness.

It was anatomically correct. He did not specify that the skeleton had to be made up or what materials it had to be made of.


Are real skeletons made of plastic then? Or did the candidates need to dig up some recently buried bodies?