Zhivago wrote:
Name me a country that don't do TV debates.
Somalia.
Or South Sudan - I don't think they've got TVs in South Sudan.
TV debates do not add to our democratic process. If May were televised alongside the other candidates for the Maidenhead seat, then it might add to the democratic process in Maidenhead (As long as it didn't clash with Eastenders or TOWIE), but its feck all use in exposing the relative merits or deficiencies of the candidates in the other 649 constituencies of the UK.
We'll be stuck with this shower for another 5 years so it can't all be about fecking BREXIT.
Agreed, they don't. If all candidates were given a truth serum it might be interesting, but most spend the time trying not to make a rash comment and thus say very little, whilst making lots of noise.
Stones of granite wrote:I'm becoming more convinced that this announcement was made so that Gatland can get his out tomorrow under cover.
Nah, the telegraph is gunning for him. Standby for crys of anguish as English players are left out. Anything other than the entire English team, plus reserves, will not please some of their writers.
belgarion wrote:Actually think May has done Corbyn a favour by saying no to a TV debate.
He'd really, really, REALLY bury Labours's chances in a televised debate
All May would have to do is appear vaguely normal to bury Corbyn. The danger for May is the smaller parties and allowing them to set the tone.
Since we don't have a straight race for the top job, I struggle to see the point of a head to head.
belgarion wrote:Actually think May has done Corbyn a favour by saying no to a TV debate.
He'd really, really, REALLY bury Labours's chances in a televised debate
All May would have to do is appear vaguely normal to bury Corbyn. The danger for May is the smaller parties and allowing them to set the tone.
Since we don't have a straight race for the top job, I struggle to see the point of a head to head.
At this moment of enormous national significance there should be unity here in Westminster, but instead there is division.
The country is coming together, but Westminster is not.
In recent weeks Labour has threatened to vote against the deal we reach with the European Union.
The Scottish National Party say they will vote against the legislation that formally repeals Britain's membership of the European Union.
And unelected members of the House of Lords have vowed to fight us every step of the way.
Our opponents believe that because the Government's majority is so small, our resolve will weaken and that they can force us to change course.They are wrong. They under-estimate our determination to get the job done and I am not prepared to let them endanger the security of millions of working people across the country.
Because what they are doing jeopardises the work we must do to prepare for Brexit at home and it weakens the Government's negotiating position in Europe. If we do not hold a general election now their political game-playing will continue, and the negotiations with the European Union will reach their most difficult stage in the run-up to the next scheduled election.
I'm a little puzzled here. Does she now think that even increasing her majority in the Commons is going to prevent any of the bolded?
Breaking it down.
1. Labour has threatened to vote against the deal we reach with European Union.
Even if Labour lose 50 seats, they may still vote against the deal. As may the LibDems and the SNP. Is increasing the majority of that vote worth an election?
2. The Scottish National Party say they will vote against the legislation that formally repeals Britain's membership of the European Union.
Again, that's not going to change. The SNP have 56 seats. So what?
3. And unelected members of the House of Lords have vowed to fight us every step of the way
This comes across to me like an unspoken threat of abolition. The question really needs to be put to her quite forcefully, how an early GE is going to change this.
Chairman May does seem to suggest it's undemocratic for anyone not to agree with her, which given she's almost on the verge of an unopposed victory and has already made two runs at using sovereign power is a little worrying
belgarion wrote:Actually think May has done Corbyn a favour by saying no to a TV debate.
He'd really, really, REALLY bury Labours's chances in a televised debate
All May would have to do is appear vaguely normal to bury Corbyn. The danger for May is the smaller parties and allowing them to set the tone.
Since we don't have a straight race for the top job, I struggle to see the point of a head to head.
I don't see how it's relevant.
It adds complexity. We don't directly elect our PM and whilst that personality is important to many voters, technically its not.
However, how wide do you open the net? Not even getting into Scottish, NI and Welsh regional issues, at what stage do we draw the line on a political party and suggest that they shouldn't be represented? UKIP have no MPs but have had considerable support in the past from the electorate. You can easily have a large number of party leaders on the forum each with 60 seconds to provide a witty response/PR approved offering for an answer which doesn't actually tell us that much. All it does is promote the public face of that leadership, so we are just promoting style over substance.
I'd rather every major party leader was grilled by Paxo for 60 minutes, that would be more useful.
We don't choose our PM directly, but come on you can't one minute complain about corbyn being a poor leader and then the next minute claim that we are not selecting a leader or party based on their leader. Clearly the leader matters massively and we do indirectly select them. It is therefore only right to be able to see clearly what options we have in front of us. I think that the debates are a suitable way of showcasing these options.
As for what criteria, this has been sufficiently decided to hold previous debates. I do not see that anything has changed so much that this is suddenly such an issue.
Stones of granite wrote:This is a key excerpt from her speech:
At this moment of enormous national significance there should be unity here in Westminster, but instead there is division.
The country is coming together, but Westminster is not.
In recent weeks Labour has threatened to vote against the deal we reach with the European Union.
The Scottish National Party say they will vote against the legislation that formally repeals Britain's membership of the European Union.
And unelected members of the House of Lords have vowed to fight us every step of the way.
Our opponents believe that because the Government's majority is so small, our resolve will weaken and that they can force us to change course.They are wrong. They under-estimate our determination to get the job done and I am not prepared to let them endanger the security of millions of working people across the country.
Because what they are doing jeopardises the work we must do to prepare for Brexit at home and it weakens the Government's negotiating position in Europe. If we do not hold a general election now their political game-playing will continue, and the negotiations with the European Union will reach their most difficult stage in the run-up to the next scheduled election.
I'm a little puzzled here. Does she now think that even increasing her majority in the Commons is going to prevent any of the bolded?
Breaking it down.
1. Labour has threatened to vote against the deal we reach with European Union.
Even if Labour lose 50 seats, they may still vote against the deal. As may the LibDems and the SNP. Is increasing the majority of that vote worth an election?
2. The Scottish National Party say they will vote against the legislation that formally repeals Britain's membership of the European Union.
Again, that's not going to change. The SNP have 56 seats. So what?
3. And unelected members of the House of Lords have vowed to fight us every step of the way
This comes across to me like an unspoken threat of abolition. The question really needs to be put to her quite forcefully, how an early GE is going to change this.
4. "The real issue is my backbench and slim majority but I can't say that in public."
Sandydragon wrote:
All May would have to do is appear vaguely normal to bury Corbyn. The danger for May is the smaller parties and allowing them to set the tone.
Since we don't have a straight race for the top job, I struggle to see the point of a head to head.
I don't see how it's relevant.
It adds complexity. We don't directly elect our PM and whilst that personality is important to many voters, technically its not.
However, how wide do you open the net? Not even getting into Scottish, NI and Welsh regional issues, at what stage do we draw the line on a political party and suggest that they shouldn't be represented? UKIP have no MPs but have had considerable support in the past from the electorate. You can easily have a large number of party leaders on the forum each with 60 seconds to provide a witty response/PR approved offering for an answer which doesn't actually tell us that much. All it does is promote the public face of that leadership, so we are just promoting style over substance.
I'd rather every major party leader was grilled by Paxo for 60 minutes, that would be more useful.
Wait outside the polling booths and ask people if they can name the person they just voted for. 90% will not even remember/know. They will (pretty much) all know the name of his/her party and its leader though.
If the leader is not important, why is Corbyn such an issue for (potential) Labour voters?
belgarion wrote:Actually think May has done Corbyn a favour by saying no to a TV debate.
He'd really, really, REALLY bury Labours's chances in a televised debate
All May would have to do is appear vaguely normal to bury Corbyn. The danger for May is the smaller parties and allowing them to set the tone.
Since we don't have a straight race for the top job, I struggle to see the point of a head to head.
You clearly don't watch PMQs much. Corbyn, who used to get totally buried by DC on a weekly basis, regularly makes May look like a braying fool or one of Macbeth's witches.
May is fine as long as she doesn't need to interact with another human being, because the moment she does, it becomes apparent that she isn't one.
belgarion wrote:Actually think May has done Corbyn a favour by saying no to a TV debate.
He'd really, really, REALLY bury Labours's chances in a televised debate
All May would have to do is appear vaguely normal to bury Corbyn. The danger for May is the smaller parties and allowing them to set the tone.
Since we don't have a straight race for the top job, I struggle to see the point of a head to head.
You clearly don't watch PMQs much. Corbyn, who used to get totally buried by DC on a weekly basis, regularly makes May look like a braying fool or one of Macbeth's witches.
May is fine as long as she doesn't need to interact with another human being, because the moment she does, it becomes apparent that she isn't one.
Even supposing that's true I don't see how Corbyn changes the image many seem to have of him now, in that who wants to even give him a chance? Even among the Labour voters I know there's only derision of Corbyn, when even your core voters don't want to listen and hold you in such low esteem how on earth are you going to encourage non Labour voters to listen?
belgarion wrote:Actually think May has done Corbyn a favour by saying no to a TV debate.
He'd really, really, REALLY bury Labours's chances in a televised debate
All May would have to do is appear vaguely normal to bury Corbyn. The danger for May is the smaller parties and allowing them to set the tone.
Since we don't have a straight race for the top job, I struggle to see the point of a head to head.
You clearly don't watch PMQs much. Corbyn, who used to get totally buried by DC on a weekly basis, regularly makes May look like a braying fool or one of Macbeth's witches.
May is fine as long as she doesn't need to interact with another human being, because the moment she does, it becomes apparent that she isn't one.
I don't watch much PMQ's, mostly because it's just an extension of crappy meedja politics. Agree about the rest.
Neither seem particularly good at public speaking. May has sounded absolutely terrified in the last few interviews I've watched. She can't control the wobble in her voice when she's doing the white lies.
I wonder if she's at the point of not wanting to take responsibility for what comes next and is hoping the vote goes against her. Like Boris tried to do.
Stones of granite wrote:This is a key excerpt from her speech:
At this moment of enormous national significance there should be unity here in Westminster, but instead there is division.
The country is coming together, but Westminster is not.
In recent weeks Labour has threatened to vote against the deal we reach with the European Union.
The Scottish National Party say they will vote against the legislation that formally repeals Britain's membership of the European Union.
And unelected members of the House of Lords have vowed to fight us every step of the way.
Our opponents believe that because the Government's majority is so small, our resolve will weaken and that they can force us to change course.They are wrong. They under-estimate our determination to get the job done and I am not prepared to let them endanger the security of millions of working people across the country.
Because what they are doing jeopardises the work we must do to prepare for Brexit at home and it weakens the Government's negotiating position in Europe. If we do not hold a general election now their political game-playing will continue, and the negotiations with the European Union will reach their most difficult stage in the run-up to the next scheduled election.
I'm a little puzzled here. Does she now think that even increasing her majority in the Commons is going to prevent any of the bolded?
Breaking it down.
1. Labour has threatened to vote against the deal we reach with European Union.
Even if Labour lose 50 seats, they may still vote against the deal. As may the LibDems and the SNP. Is increasing the majority of that vote worth an election?
2. The Scottish National Party say they will vote against the legislation that formally repeals Britain's membership of the European Union.
Again, that's not going to change. The SNP have 56 seats. So what?
3. And unelected members of the House of Lords have vowed to fight us every step of the way
This comes across to me like an unspoken threat of abolition. The question really needs to be put to her quite forcefully, how an early GE is going to change this.
4. "The real issue is my backbench and slim majority but I can't say that in public."
Add to that the 30 Tory MPs that are under investigation for electoral fraud.
Zhivago wrote:
Add to that the 30 Tory MPs that are under investigation for electoral fraud.
That decision is now in the hands of the CPS. Norman Smith (twatrightwingapologist) was suggesting it was more likely their election agents would be prosecuted. But if there's a flood of them,.....it ain't gonna look good.
Zhivago wrote:
Add to that the 30 Tory MPs that are under investigation for electoral fraud.
That decision is now in the hands of the CPS. Norman Smith (twatrightwingapologist) was suggesting it was more likely their election agents would be prosecuted. But if there's a flood of them,.....it ain't gonna look good.
Yep. Calling this election isn't going to stop any prosecutions, as much as you'd like a conspiracy.
Zhivago wrote:
Add to that the 30 Tory MPs that are under investigation for electoral fraud.
That decision is now in the hands of the CPS. Norman Smith (twatrightwingapologist) was suggesting it was more likely their election agents would be prosecuted. But if there's a flood of them,.....it ain't gonna look good.
Yep. Calling this election isn't going to stop any prosecutions, as much as you'd like a conspiracy.
It prevents by-elections. Potentially 30 of them which Labour would need to win only about 13...
kk67 wrote:
That decision is now in the hands of the CPS. Norman Smith (twatrightwingapologist) was suggesting it was more likely their election agents would be prosecuted. But if there's a flood of them,.....it ain't gonna look good.
Yep. Calling this election isn't going to stop any prosecutions, as much as you'd like a conspiracy.
It prevents by-elections. Potentially 30 of them which Labour would need to win only about 13...
But those constituencies will be up for grabs during the general election.....
