I don't know if he tends to flat out refuse, not with this event, nor with the various Tory leadership events he failed to turn up to. He indicates in advance he mayn't show, but leaves it open in large part. How much it's down to he doesn't put in the work, how much it's a political judgement that he'd do better not speaking, and how much it's simply cowardice I don't know, on the one hand it's deeply unimpressive though that is caveated by we don't have any agreed formats by which parties and/or leaders will appear in such debates
I also don't know if I even like the debates that much. I'd far rather have someone who'd work hard with excellent attention to detail actually doing the work than a talented public speaker. But it is a worry that so often when Boris gets a chance to stand up and be counted he simply runs away
weirdly he's just done an interview on LBC. Suspect he's just following advisers strategy to avoid him saying something calamitous.
Where other party leaders got to put questions and critique his attempts at answering?
He's going to have to do a lot of media, it's basically him, Javid and Gove seemingly allowed in front of a camera. I've heard more this week from Ed Vaizey than JRM since they had to gag the latter for telling dead people they were stupid, Priti Patel isn't being allowed to speak, Francois and Bridgen they're surely imploring not to speak
Raab, Wallace, Barclay, Truss, Buckland, Leadsom, Coffey have seemingly all fecked off on holiday, I don't actually know who's in charge of Northern Ireland or housing, both those are both subjects not up for discussion it would seem. I suppose they are letting Hancock out of the box for the odd half hour
The same is true of the other parties in fairness. Corbyn and McDonnell only (barring the odd Rayner and Abbott nonsenses; they need to hide Burgon and Barry Gardiner more), Swinson and er...Swinson, Sturgeon and er Sturgeon (and thats a nonsense, Blackford should be fronting those).
Interesting to hear from both Vaizey and Nicky Morgan, as neither are standing. Esp as Morgan was put in the position of trying to explain nurse-gate. Both Truss and Raab are about and have been interviewed, as has Hancock, but none have been esp visible.
Banquo wrote:
weirdly he's just done an interview on LBC. Suspect he's just following advisers strategy to avoid him saying something calamitous.
I think it’s this. Given his self-confidence and love of Churchill, he believes he’s a great orator and debater. The tactic imposed on him since running in the leadership race is to minimise the chances of making a gaffe.
I suppose its better to be interviewed by Ferrari- who is a trabant of an interviewer, than by Neill who is a Ferrari by comparison. Suspect he'll succumb to a Neill interview, but at the very last minute.
It’ll depend on the polls, I’d have thought. I’m hoping they’re keeping him back in case the polls keep tightening rather than just running scared. As much as I hate the debates, the Neill interviews and similar should be a central part of all GEs.
I do love watching the reaction to Neill’s interviews. When it’s your man/woman being interviewed he’s bias and won’t stop interrupting. When it’s your oppo’s leader he’s the greatest interviewer in the world and is justly holding their BS to account.
I don't know if he tends to flat out refuse, not with this event, nor with the various Tory leadership events he failed to turn up to. He indicates in advance he mayn't show, but leaves it open in large part. How much it's down to he doesn't put in the work, how much it's a political judgement that he'd do better not speaking, and how much it's simply cowardice I don't know, on the one hand it's deeply unimpressive though that is caveated by we don't have any agreed formats by which parties and/or leaders will appear in such debates
I also don't know if I even like the debates that much. I'd far rather have someone who'd work hard with excellent attention to detail actually doing the work than a talented public speaker. But it is a worry that so often when Boris gets a chance to stand up and be counted he simply runs away
weirdly he's just done an interview on LBC. Suspect he's just following advisers strategy to avoid him saying something calamitous.
Where other party leaders got to put questions and critique his attempts at answering?
He's going to have to do a lot of media, it's basically him, Javid and Gove seemingly allowed in front of a camera. I've heard more this week from Ed Vaizey than JRM since they had to gag the latter for telling dead people they were stupid, Priti Patel isn't being allowed to speak, Francois and Bridgen they're surely imploring not to speak
Raab, Wallace, Barclay, Truss, Buckland, Leadsom, Coffey have seemingly all fecked off on holiday, I don't actually know who's in charge of Northern Ireland or housing, both those are both subjects not up for discussion it would seem. I suppose they are letting Hancock out of the box for the odd half hour
I’ll be delighted if most of those names are just as quiet after the election. Raab is in danger of losing his seat so is probably too busy for the national campaign.
The NI SoS is my MP, Julian Smith, he’s either busy campaigning locally or in NI doing his day job. He’s doing it well by all accounts, there has even been done praise from Sinn Fein(!), but, given the previous SoS, he needs to be.
Zhivago wrote:
Borrowing costs are low because there has been a huge decrease in the supply of sovereign debt assets in the market due to all the quantitative easing. The bank of England owns about 25% of government debt so the gov is not as in debt as is generally made out.
The GFC was not caused by Brown, it was born in the US by badly rated mortgage derivatives and the housing bubble popping. It was not caused by too much borrowing here. That's a brainless narrative that only someone who is regurgitating Tory lies would push.
I know why borrowing costs are low. I also know, given the history of the world economy, that it is highly unlikely it will always be that way.
Where did I say it was Brown's fault? I literally said "it only takes a crisis not of your own making" and then used the 'credit crunch' as an example of it under mining Brown's economic plan through no fault of his own.
Also the housing crisis of 2008 might not have been caused here, but there is too much borrowing here, and none of the parties have any policies designed to reduce our use of credit in the economy. And since 2008 the banks have simply been finding new ways to seek new business (lending money) rather than trying to cut the amount of money being lent, so things are only getting worse, imo
New money needs to be put into the system for it to function. That can either be private or public debt. Which do you prefer? Sounds like you want neither.
Banquo wrote:
weirdly he's just done an interview on LBC. Suspect he's just following advisers strategy to avoid him saying something calamitous.
Where other party leaders got to put questions and critique his attempts at answering?
He's going to have to do a lot of media, it's basically him, Javid and Gove seemingly allowed in front of a camera. I've heard more this week from Ed Vaizey than JRM since they had to gag the latter for telling dead people they were stupid, Priti Patel isn't being allowed to speak, Francois and Bridgen they're surely imploring not to speak
Raab, Wallace, Barclay, Truss, Buckland, Leadsom, Coffey have seemingly all fecked off on holiday, I don't actually know who's in charge of Northern Ireland or housing, both those are both subjects not up for discussion it would seem. I suppose they are letting Hancock out of the box for the odd half hour
The same is true of the other parties in fairness. Corbyn and McDonnell only (barring the odd Rayner and Abbott nonsenses; they need to hide Burgon and Barry Gardiner more), Swinson and er...Swinson, Sturgeon and er Sturgeon (and thats a nonsense, Blackford should be fronting those).
Interesting to hear from both Vaizey and Nicky Morgan, as neither are standing. Esp as Morgan was put in the position of trying to explain nurse-gate. Both Truss and Raab are about and have been interviewed, as has Hancock, but none have been esp visible.
Barry Gardner made me laugh losing his cool once Jeremy was asked if he wanted to apologise for leading a racist party when he wanted questions about the NHS. I mean apart from anything else Corbyn is a politician, what does it matter what the question is, just give the answer you want
Mellsblue wrote:
I know why borrowing costs are low. I also know, given the history of the world economy, that it is highly unlikely it will always be that way.
Where did I say it was Brown's fault? I literally said "it only takes a crisis not of your own making" and then used the 'credit crunch' as an example of it under mining Brown's economic plan through no fault of his own.
Also the housing crisis of 2008 might not have been caused here, but there is too much borrowing here, and none of the parties have any policies designed to reduce our use of credit in the economy. And since 2008 the banks have simply been finding new ways to seek new business (lending money) rather than trying to cut the amount of money being lent, so things are only getting worse, imo
New money needs to be put into the system for it to function. That can either be private or public debt. Which do you prefer? Sounds like you want neither.
But my point is I don't want the system to work, I want the system to change, I want to rely less on the use of credit. That's not an easy shift, it will take time, and it will impact banks and consumers (voters) and do so in ways they often don't like
I cannot imagine sufficient numbers will agree with me for it to happen, even those societies traditionally more averse to the use of credit the likes of Japan and Germany are moving toward us, and we're moving toward the US. In truth it's no longer money making the world go round, it's credit, and it is a system that works even if I don't like it, we just have to accept there's an element of Russian roulette involved
Digby wrote:
Where other party leaders got to put questions and critique his attempts at answering?
He's going to have to do a lot of media, it's basically him, Javid and Gove seemingly allowed in front of a camera. I've heard more this week from Ed Vaizey than JRM since they had to gag the latter for telling dead people they were stupid, Priti Patel isn't being allowed to speak, Francois and Bridgen they're surely imploring not to speak
Raab, Wallace, Barclay, Truss, Buckland, Leadsom, Coffey have seemingly all fecked off on holiday, I don't actually know who's in charge of Northern Ireland or housing, both those are both subjects not up for discussion it would seem. I suppose they are letting Hancock out of the box for the odd half hour
The same is true of the other parties in fairness. Corbyn and McDonnell only (barring the odd Rayner and Abbott nonsenses; they need to hide Burgon and Barry Gardiner more), Swinson and er...Swinson, Sturgeon and er Sturgeon (and thats a nonsense, Blackford should be fronting those).
Interesting to hear from both Vaizey and Nicky Morgan, as neither are standing. Esp as Morgan was put in the position of trying to explain nurse-gate. Both Truss and Raab are about and have been interviewed, as has Hancock, but none have been esp visible.
Barry Gardner made me laugh losing his cool once Jeremy was asked if he wanted to apologise for leading a racist party when he wanted questions about the NHS. I mean apart from anything else Corbyn is a politician, what does it matter what the question is, just give the answer you want
Old Bazza seems to have mostly gotten away with that one. As an aside, his voice is so ridiculous I do find him hard to take seriously.
Having now googled his background, I’m surprised he’s not been pilloried as an out of touch elite talking down to female journalists he sees as his inferiors. His education is only one rung down from the Eton and the Oxbridge path so despised by those on the left.
Banquo wrote:
weirdly he's just done an interview on LBC. Suspect he's just following advisers strategy to avoid him saying something calamitous.
I think it’s this. Given his self-confidence and love of Churchill, he believes he’s a great orator and debater. The tactic imposed on him since running in the leadership race is to minimise the chances of making a gaffe.
I suppose its better to be interviewed by Ferrari- who is a trabant of an interviewer, than by Neill who is a Ferrari by comparison. Suspect he'll succumb to a Neill interview, but at the very last minute.
Sounds like he's still being taken apart from the quotes on the Guardian's livestream. And yes, I know the Guardian have an agenda to push, but I can't seem to find another news site reporting on Boris struggling to answer fairly simple questions about his comments on Muslims and single mums (and how many children he has and whether he's involved in all their lives as a corollary to the latter), his claims about new nurses and hospitals, and why he didn't do the climate debate.
Frankly, if he's struggling this much with Ferrari, it's a very good tactic to keep him away from Neil.
Johnson is a lightweight. He can't even handle a simple news conference or deal efficiently with mild questioning from tv news reporters.
Its no surprise he will want to keep scrutiny to an absolute minimum.
Son of Mathonwy wrote:
Perhaps scared of retribution, post-election?
Any other conspiracy theories you want to get out of the way whilst you’re at it?
Hate to say it, but the only appropriate response is... I told you so
Ha! You’ve got me bang to rights, guv.
It’s f**king pathetic.
I’m only too happy to criticise my own party and it’s leader when required, as you’ll see from my posts today. Alternatively, I could’ve questioned the use of ‘source’ and/or questioned whether Buzzfeed was/is bias or has an agenda, as happens when Corbyn is present but not involved.
I know its The Sun but.... Corbyn claims there is a bias within the BBC that there is a right for Israel to exist and for it to be a democracy in the Middle East.
fivepointer wrote:Johnson is a lightweight. He can't even handle a simple news conference or deal efficiently with mild questioning from tv news reporters.
Its no surprise he will want to keep scrutiny to an absolute minimum.
He's better when he can control the content, big speeches that sort of thing. A thorough cross examination really isn't his idea of fun, or anywhere within his comfort zone.
fivepointer wrote:Johnson is a lightweight. He can't even handle a simple news conference or deal efficiently with mild questioning from tv news reporters.
Its no surprise he will want to keep scrutiny to an absolute minimum.
Ditto Corbyn in fairness. And Swinson. Dear oh dear we are in bother.
I know its The Sun but.... Corbyn claims there is a bias within the BBC that there is a right for Israel to exist and for it to be a democracy in the Middle East.
Well that's not great. Haven't watched the video (as at work), but the picked quotes aren't ideal. Bit hard to tell how bad it is, given there are some impressive reaches by the Sun in the article, including the claim that saying Israel puts pressure on media outlets counts as "peddling an offensive conspiracy theory about Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions, according to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's definition of anti-Semitism," while ignoring that the IHRA also have specific issues with conflating the actions of the state of Israel and Jews.
I know its The Sun but.... Corbyn claims there is a bias within the BBC that there is a right for Israel to exist and for it to be a democracy in the Middle East.
Well that's not great. Haven't watched the video (as at work), but the picked quotes aren't ideal. Bit hard to tell how bad it is, given there are some impressive reaches by the Sun in the article, including the claim that saying Israel puts pressure on media outlets counts as "peddling an offensive conspiracy theory about Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions, according to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's definition of anti-Semitism," while ignoring that the IHRA also have specific issues with conflating the actions of the state of Israel and Jews.
Puja
Yeah. It is the Sun, hence my qualification at the start but just watch the video and make your own mind up.
I know its The Sun but.... Corbyn claims there is a bias within the BBC that there is a right for Israel to exist and for it to be a democracy in the Middle East.
Well that's not great. Haven't watched the video (as at work), but the picked quotes aren't ideal. Bit hard to tell how bad it is, given there are some impressive reaches by the Sun in the article, including the claim that saying Israel puts pressure on media outlets counts as "peddling an offensive conspiracy theory about Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions, according to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's definition of anti-Semitism," while ignoring that the IHRA also have specific issues with conflating the actions of the state of Israel and Jews.
Puja
Yeah. It is the Sun, hence my qualification at the start but just watch the video and make your own mind up.
Not sure there is much new in that, its an old clip and he had held those beliefs forever.
Everyone is throwing JRM under the bus in urging those potentially affected by the attack at Monument/London Bridge to follow the official advice. We'll have to wait and see what the attack entails, who carried it out, and what impact it might have on the election.
I've no idea how many times I've crossed London Bridge, there's a decent chance I know a number involved in today's incident, essentially there's a reason they call it terrorism
Digby wrote:Everyone is throwing JRM under the bus in urging those potentially affected by the attack at Monument/London Bridge to follow the official advice. We'll have to wait and see what the attack entails, who carried it out, and what impact it might have on the election.
I've no idea how many times I've crossed London Bridge, there's a decent chance I know a number involved in today's incident, essentially there's a reason they call it terrorism
Good work by the general public and the police. My kids weren't around there thank the lord.
As you say, sometimes these things play out oddly.
I know its The Sun but.... Corbyn claims there is a bias within the BBC that there is a right for Israel to exist and for it to be a democracy in the Middle East.
Well that's not great. Haven't watched the video (as at work), but the picked quotes aren't ideal. Bit hard to tell how bad it is, given there are some impressive reaches by the Sun in the article, including the claim that saying Israel puts pressure on media outlets counts as "peddling an offensive conspiracy theory about Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions, according to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's definition of anti-Semitism," while ignoring that the IHRA also have specific issues with conflating the actions of the state of Israel and Jews.
Puja
Agreed.
The last example following the IHRA's (admittedly poor and misleading) definition of anti-Semitism is "Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel."
Since Corbyn does not at any point mention Jews - he only speaks of Israel - then it's the Sun that is suggesting that Jews are collectively responsible for the actions of Israel. So according to the definition, the Sun is possibly* being anti-semitic.
*I say possibly because the definition is so vague and qualified with mays and coulds that pretty much any perception of Jews could qualify - or not - depending how one is feeling on a given day.
I know its The Sun but.... Corbyn claims there is a bias within the BBC that there is a right for Israel to exist and for it to be a democracy in the Middle East.
Well that's not great. Haven't watched the video (as at work), but the picked quotes aren't ideal. Bit hard to tell how bad it is, given there are some impressive reaches by the Sun in the article, including the claim that saying Israel puts pressure on media outlets counts as "peddling an offensive conspiracy theory about Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions, according to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's definition of anti-Semitism," while ignoring that the IHRA also have specific issues with conflating the actions of the state of Israel and Jews.
Puja
Agreed.
The last example following the IHRA's (admittedly poor and misleading) definition of anti-Semitism is "Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel."
Since Corbyn does not at any point mention Jews - he only speaks of Israel - then it's the Sun that is suggesting that Jews are collectively responsible for the actions of Israel. So according to the definition, the Sun is possibly* being anti-semitic.
*I say possibly because the definition is so vague and qualified with mays and coulds that pretty much any perception of Jews could qualify - or not - depending how one is feeling on a given day.
Puja wrote:
Well that's not great. Haven't watched the video (as at work), but the picked quotes aren't ideal. Bit hard to tell how bad it is, given there are some impressive reaches by the Sun in the article, including the claim that saying Israel puts pressure on media outlets counts as "peddling an offensive conspiracy theory about Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions, according to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's definition of anti-Semitism," while ignoring that the IHRA also have specific issues with conflating the actions of the state of Israel and Jews.
Puja
Agreed.
The last example following the IHRA's (admittedly poor and misleading) definition of anti-Semitism is "Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel."
Since Corbyn does not at any point mention Jews - he only speaks of Israel - then it's the Sun that is suggesting that Jews are collectively responsible for the actions of Israel. So according to the definition, the Sun is possibly* being anti-semitic.
*I say possibly because the definition is so vague and qualified with mays and coulds that pretty much any perception of Jews could qualify - or not - depending how one is feeling on a given day.
Any issues with what Corbyn said?
No. Given that Israel has been illegally occupying - and mistreating the inhabitants of - land taken from neighbouring states for over half a century, I think the BBC is showing bias by failing to question this situation. Whether this is due to influence from Israel itself, I have no idea, but it's plausible.
Mellsblue wrote:
Any other conspiracy theories you want to get out of the way whilst you’re at it?
Hate to say it, but the only appropriate response is... I told you so
Ha! You’ve got me bang to rights, guv.
It’s f**king pathetic.
I’m only too happy to criticise my own party and it’s leader when required, as you’ll see from my posts today. Alternatively, I could’ve questioned the use of ‘source’ and/or questioned whether Buzzfeed was/is bias or has an agenda, as happens when Corbyn is present but not involved.
No worries.
I'd like to think it was me being cynical or paranoid, but the conservatives reallyare like this.
The last example following the IHRA's (admittedly poor and misleading) definition of anti-Semitism is "Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel."
Since Corbyn does not at any point mention Jews - he only speaks of Israel - then it's the Sun that is suggesting that Jews are collectively responsible for the actions of Israel. So according to the definition, the Sun is possibly* being anti-semitic.
*I say possibly because the definition is so vague and qualified with mays and coulds that pretty much any perception of Jews could qualify - or not - depending how one is feeling on a given day.
Any issues with what Corbyn said?
No. Given that Israel has been illegally occupying - and mistreating the inhabitants of - land taken from neighbouring states for over half a century, I think the BBC is showing bias by failing to question this situation. Whether this is due to influence from Israel itself, I have no idea, but it's plausible.
