Urgent Statement from PM today

[Hacker Khan]

If you expect anyone to be educated by watching Teressa May having to stand on a stage with a bunch of Muppets like Corbyn, Sturgeon, those silly Wesh/Green Women and Golum then have a long "Progressive" look at yourself.

Well if she was so confident of the 'uselessness' of the rest of them then you would think she would relish the opportunity. It's not as if she has not got any form in political opportunism judging by the timing of this election.

 

[Hacker Khan]

If you expect anyone to be educated by watching Teressa May having to stand on a stage with a bunch of Muppets like Corbyn, Sturgeon, those silly Wesh/Green Women and Golum then have a long "Progressive" look at yourself.

And you think a TV debate will be any less staged / choreographed with selected audience, selected questions!

IF the average person is swayed by this, constructed for TV, rubbish we're in really trouble.

The PM is best to stay well clear as the current head of government she can only be placed on the back foot as all the others will promise anything and say anything having been responsible for the sum total of beggar all. Chaired by a presenter on an ego trip.

Am also wondering if this is a point of principal. So let's say the positions are reversed and Labour are in a commanding lead and the Labour leader declines to do a debate. Would you still be defending the right of leaders to pick and chose when they do these debates depending on where they are in the opinion polls? Or would you be calling for a leadership debate as a sign of a healthy democracy and as an opportunity for the labour leader to be challenged on their policies? Just kind of wondering that as tories, are you are taking this stance based purely on self interest. Not that tories would ever do such a thing of course.

 

[Hobbit]

I find the TV debates too superficial. Its sound bite politics without real substance. Its petty points scoring and spin, with manifesto pledges taken out of context and discredited with lies. And that's from all sides. And sadly it then comes down to who is the best willy waver.

Do we really need to choose our next govt based on a TV 'contest?'

 

[Hacker Khan]

I find the TV debates too superficial. Its sound bite politics without real substance. Its petty points scoring and spin, with manifesto pledges taken out of context and discredited with lies. And that's from all sides. And sadly it then comes down to who is the best willy waver.

Do we really need to choose our next govt based on a TV 'contest?'

But like it or not that is how the world operates. Trump got elected leader of the USA on 140 characters or less.

Not saying a debate that will be the only factor in chosing, far from it. But as I have already pointed out, we seem to be living in a post fact world where lots of people get their information from their echo chambers. And a rumour or untruth easily becomes believed as the truth by both sides. So seeing the leaders discuss things and hearing things come out of their mouths that has not been staged managed by their PR team to an inch of its life in a extremely controlled environment may be a good thing IMHO.

 

[Reemul]

But like it or not that is how the world operates. Trump got elected leader of the USA on 140 characters or less.

Not saying a debate that will be the only factor in chosing, far from it. But as I have already pointed out, we seem to be living in a post fact world where lots of people get their information from their echo chambers. And a rumour or untruth easily becomes believed as the truth by both sides. So seeing the leaders discuss things and hearing things come out of their mouths that has not been staged managed by their PR team to an inch of its life in a extremely controlled environment may be a good thing IMHO.

Why does the UK have to operate like that. We don't need pointless TV debate spectacles just because the USA has them is no reason we should.

Let the parties get some good clear manifesto's up and lets hold them to them. We need really good opposition so when they aren't upheld they get a grilling and us the people get up and support this.

Standing up on TV and winning a sham debate means nothing and neither does saying well that's the way it is or it just is...

 

[User62651]

But like it or not that is how the world operates. Trump got elected leader of the USA on 140 characters or less.

Not saying a debate that will be the only factor in chosing, far from it. But as I have already pointed out, we seem to be living in a post fact world where lots of people get their information from their echo chambers. And a rumour or untruth easily becomes believed as the truth by both sides. So seeing the leaders discuss things and hearing things come out of their mouths that has not been staged managed by their PR team to an inch of its life in a extremely controlled environment may be a good thing IMHO.

Expect people in chicken suits to follow May around the hustings, surprised we haven't seen one already. She'll have to defend this position right through the campaign and will be sick of it, looked pretty flummoxed when asked today about it in her own constituency and there's 6 weeks+ to go! TV companies wont let up.:thup:

Changes her mind on everything with a huge degree of hypocrisy thrown in so fair chance she'll change her mind on this too?

 

[spongebob59]

Maybe TM should just call all the others liars and threaten to lock them up and promise to build a wall across Scotland, after all this worked for Trumpy :ears:

 

[Hobbit]

Why does the UK have to operate like that. We don't need pointless TV debate spectacles just because the USA has them is no reason we should.

Let the parties get some good clear manifesto's up and lets hold them to them. We need really good opposition so when they aren't upheld they get a grilling and us the people get up and support this.

Standing up on TV and winning a sham debate means nothing and neither does saying well that's the way it is or it just is...

Well said.

Believing we need these things becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy if we let it. Saying this is the way of the world is a cop out. We decide our world by our actions and by our inactions.

 

[dewsweeper]

Well said.

Believing we need these things becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy if we let it. Saying this is the way of the world is a cop out. We decide our world by our actions and by our inactions.

agree completely with this.
Cannot tell you how many elections I have lived through but never felt it necessary to follow other countries ways,particularly the good old US ofA.

 

[FairwayDodger]

Lots of nonsense in here as usual. It's the 21st century, let's see the leaders debate! That doesn't detract from any other info source we have but it's one more vehicle to get more people interested and to the polling station so it can only be a good thing.

 

[Hacker Khan]

Why does the UK have to operate like that. We don't need pointless TV debate spectacles 'just because the USA has them is no reason we should'.

Let the parties get some good clear manifesto's up and lets hold them to them. We need really good opposition so when they aren't upheld they get a grilling and us the people get up and support this.

Standing up on TV and winning a sham debate means nothing and neither does saying well that's the way it is or it just is...

I do not want to see them being done 'just because the USA has them'. I want to see one as I want to see how my potential PM acts under scrutiny and challenge of their polices by other potential leaders in a debating situation. If a potential leader then tries to score cheap political points by resorting to insults and sarcasm, much as I always do on this forum, then I am intelligent enough to work out that is what they are doing and will form my opinion of them based on that.

 

[dewsweeper]

Lots of nonsense in here as usual. It's the 21st century, let's see the leaders debate! That doesn't detract from any other info source we have but it's one more vehicle to get more people interested and to the polling station so it can only be a good thing.

sorry to have an opinion that is different to some.
Not sure a TV debate will teach anything ,people never seem able to change a long held view as is often proved in our virtual group.
I feel sure Nicola Sturgeon is better than Theresa May in a head to head debate but I still think I disagree with her aims.

 

[Hacker Khan]

sorry to have an opinion that is different to some.
Not sure a TV debate will teach anything ,people never seem able to change a long held view as is often proved in our virtual group.
I feel sure Nicola Sturgeon is better than Theresa May in a head to head debate but I still think I disagree with her aims.

Well in that case they may as well not bother with any campaigns at all???

 

[JT77]

From what I have seen of these, they are not debates, but more loaded questions aimed at specific individuals, questions that require an answer by all, on things like health, education, fiscal policy and how they will achieve them or what they will do different to their opposition ovule be interesting but that's not what happens!
Just a chest out shouting exercise and none of them ever truly deliver what they promise.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

If TV debate is useless and Newspapers and other media are biased, campaign leaflets are lies, that only leaves us with manifesto's, shall we take them as bibles or as more lies?
Nothing changes then and we vote the way we always have or we are fooled by lies.
Were do we go to find the truth?

 

[Doon frae Troon]

So many double standards on here today.

Turn it around and imagine what would have happened if Corbyn or Sturgeon had taken the same stance as May by refusing to debate.

May does not want to debate as she well knows that many of her parties policies are indefensible.

 

[drdel]

Am also wondering if this is a point of principal. So let's say the positions are reversed and Labour are in a commanding lead and the Labour leader declines to do a debate. Would you still be defending the right of leaders to pick and chose when they do these debates depending on where they are in the opinion polls? Or would you be calling for a leadership debate as a sign of a healthy democracy and as an opportunity for the labour leader to be challenged on their policies? Just kind of wondering that as tories, are you are taking this stance based purely on self interest. Not that tories would ever do such a thing of course.

My point is not related to political colour: I'm merely suggesting that a TV 'debate' is far from useful because it is artificial in the extreme - the presenters usually just get in the way. Research has suggested these debates do little to change voters' views - usually only reinforce entrenched attitudes.

Any PM would be unwise to bother playing such games because, as the person 'in post', they will always be portrayed as the 'accused' by the other contestants and the media hoping to driving for a sensationalistic broadcast.

 

[Hacker Khan]

My point is not related to political colour: I'm merely suggesting that a TV 'debate' is far from useful because it is artificial in the extreme - the presenters usually just get in the way. Research has suggested these debates do little to change voters' views - usually only reinforce entrenched attitudes.

Any PM would be unwise to bother playing such games because, as the person 'in post', they will always be portrayed as the 'accused' by the other contestants and the media hoping to driving for a sensationalistic broadcast.

But you can apply that to most coverage. Is the coverage you get in The Mail or The Guardian 'real'. Is that not sensationalist at all either way? I am really struggling to see why a TV debate is not in any way useful but the vast majority of whatever else goes on in referendums/elections is. I'll shut up now as I have made my point ad nauseam, but in a world of biased written media on both sides, echo chambers on social media and PR guff, the idea of the leaders having to explain their policies to the nation seems to me one of the more direct ways we can see what they act like and what they think.

 

[Hobbit]

So many double standards on here today.

Turn it around and imagine what would have happened if Corbyn or Sturgeon had taken the same stance as May by refusing to debate.

May does not want to debate as she well knows that many of her parties policies are indefensible.

In your opinion.

Every policy from every party is defensible as most of them are subjective and based on a political leaning. As for Corbyn or Sturgeon refusing a TV debate, I couldn't care less.

But here's one on your heroine, Sturgeon. On April 17th she criticised May for not having a mandate to be PM as she wasn't leader of the Cons at the last election, and should call one immediately. On the 18th April she criticised May for calling an election.... Sturgeon is becoming a joke. Usually comes across as a competent politician but seems to be getting desperate in recent months.

 

[SocketRocket]

But you can apply that to most coverage. Is the coverage you get in The Mail or The Guardian 'real'. Is that not sensationalist at all either way? I am really struggling to see why a TV debate is not in any way useful but the vast majority of whatever else goes on in referendums/elections is. I'll shut up now as I have made my point ad nauseam, but in a world of biased written media on both sides, echo chambers on social media and PR guff, the idea of the leaders having to explain their policies to the nation seems to me one of the more direct ways we can see what they act like and what they think.

They do that in a manifesto.