Theresa May

[MarshPhantom]

mccrackenj said:

RichB said:

mccrackenj said:

At least she's said she'll not participate in those daft US-style pre-election TV debates. Good for her.

Naturally she's now being criticised for not honouring that long-established tradition. Must be, what, all of 2 general elections we've had them for so far?

I assume that's said tongue in cheek? As you say it's yet another Americanism that's only recently been adopted here by the TV companies.

Tongue in cheek? The debates are a ghastly imported piece of tripe which further plays to the 'presidentialism' of our politics, and as such have no place in our political system. She's right to refuse to play ball.

Yet Tony Blair found himself in a world of st for refusing to appear during two of his campaigns.




And it was The Tories that demanded them in 2010 as it was felt Cameron was going to win hands down.



The precedent has been set.

[MDMetal]

Double edged sword, it's good to see things being debated and generating a large amount of interest but there's too much placed on individual performances, who won who lost etc when really it should be a gateway to people looking to invest more time in discovering the answers to their issues. The winner of an election shouldn't be judged on a public perofrmance.

[crankedup]

MDMetal said:

Double edged sword, it's good to see things being debated and generating a large amount of interest but there's too much placed on individual performances, who won who lost etc when really it should be a gateway to people looking to invest more time in discovering the answers to their issues. The winner of an election shouldn't be judged on a public perofrmance.

Agree to a point, however the participants should ask the relevant questions of thier opponents Party Political aspirations and how they would resolve and action. Not only would the answer reveal a understanding of the issue raised it would also reveal that the questionnaire is knowledgable of the problem/policy area.

[lemmingjames]

crankedup said:

Agree to a point, however the participants should ask the relevant questions of thier opponents Party Political aspirations and how they would resolve and action. Not only would the answer reveal a understanding of the issue raised it would also reveal that the questionnaire is knowledgable of the problem/policy area.

Could you imagine Jimmy Crankie up there answering questions

[Toaster]

MDMetal said:

Double edged sword, it's good to see things being debated and generating a large amount of interest but there's too much placed on individual performances, who won who lost etc when really it should be a gateway to people looking to invest more time in discovering the answers to their issues. The winner of an election shouldn't be judged on a public perofrmance.

Why not ? Its a public post and one which effects us all so why shouldn't we hear views first hand.

[MDMetal]

Toaster said:

MDMetal said:

Double edged sword, it's good to see things being debated and generating a large amount of interest but there's too much placed on individual performances, who won who lost etc when really it should be a gateway to people looking to invest more time in discovering the answers to their issues. The winner of an election shouldn't be judged on a public perofrmance.

Why not ? Its a public post and one which effects us all so why shouldn't we hear views first hand.

It's fine to hear but it's silly to judge on personal performances, unless there's a situation that requires it 100% of the issues are policy based which are directed by several people and then delivered by a lot more. fight on the issues not the personalities...

[Strocky]

lemmingjames said:

crankedup said:

Agree to a point, however the participants should ask the relevant questions of thier opponents Party Political aspirations and how they would resolve and action. Not only would the answer reveal a understanding of the issue raised it would also reveal that the questionnaire is knowledgable of the problem/policy area.

Could you imagine Jimmy Crankie up there answering questions

You obviously forgot the plaudits she got UK wide during the 2015 TV debates, you might not agree with her politics however it's hard to argue that she isn't a polished orator

Meanwhile Theresa No Show looks more like a North Korean leader with small hand picked private appearances, not answering questions from journo's and gagging her audience

Real Democracy in action

https://twitter.com/michaellcrick/status/855398496...

[Rovinghawk]

Strocky said:

Meanwhile Theresa No Show looks more like a North Korean leader with small hand picked private appearances, not answering questions from journo's and gagging her audience

Real Democracy in action

https://twitter.com/michaellcrick/status/855398496...

I read that as the factory workers not being allowed to answer questions rather than not being allowed to ask them. I also read it as the employer's wish rather than TM's.

[sidicks]

Toaster said:

Why not ? Its a public post and one which effects us all so why shouldn't we hear views first hand.

So having the best policies is less important than being able to perform with sound bites in front of a camera?

Really?

[Sylvaforever]

I had my doubts when the election was called but with the latest "hints from hammond" I'm becoming convinced she doesn't actually want to win it!

[mccrackenj]

RichB said:

mccrackenj said:

RichB said:

mccrackenj said:

At least she's said she'll not participate in those daft US-style pre-election TV debates. Good for her.

Naturally she's now being criticised for not honouring that long-established tradition. Must be, what, all of 2 general elections we've had them for so far?

I assume that's said tongue in cheek? As you say it's yet another Americanism that's only recently been adopted here by the TV companies.

Tongue in cheek? The debates are a ghastly imported piece of tripe which further plays to the 'presidentialism' of our politics, and as such have no place in our political system. She's right to refuse to play ball.

I agree. I thought the bit that was tongue in cheek was when you said "long established" ...

It was, but surely obvious?

[Stuzza]

Sylvaforever said:

I had my doubts when the election was called but with the latest "hints from hammond" I'm becoming convinced she doesn't actually want to win it!

I think rather that they're attempting as few 'hostages to fortune' as possible. Constraining movement by ruling out raising income tax, NI or VAT limits their ability to tweak the levers of the economy and to make headway into reducing the deficit. Such constraints may be politically expedient during an election such as the 2015 one but in the different political climate they're a luxury that the Conservatives feel they can discard.

They should also be seen in the context of Labour's musings on raising tax rates (basic rate to 25% anyone?) and therefore not seen as a priority any more.

[Murph7355]

Stuzza said:

I think rather that they're attempting as few 'hostages to fortune' as possible. Constraining movement by ruling out raising income tax, NI or VAT limits their ability to tweak the levers of the economy and to make headway into reducing the deficit. Such constraints may be politically expedient during an election such as the 2015 one but in the different political climate they're a luxury that the Conservatives feel they can discard.

They should also be seen in the context of Labour's musings on raising tax rates (basic rate to 25% anyone?) and therefore not seen as a priority any more.

Tend to agree.

I just wish they'd called off the ringfencing of ANY public expenditure to give even more freedom (Foreign Aid etc).

[Stuzza]

Murph7355 said:

Tend to agree.

I just wish they'd called off the ringfencing of ANY public expenditure to give even more freedom (Foreign Aid etc).

I sort of can see the point here; it's a large amount sure but the potential for huge political damage is greater. However the point made on the Today programme this morning that perhaps all a target encourages is wastage of left over budget at the end of the year is valid and therefore perhaps 0.7% as a long-term average should be the goal -- sometimes higher and sometimes lower.

[Sylvaforever]

"potential for huge political damage"

Not nearly that as the disgraceful cuts to the disabled .

Agreed though, that they really are living on a different planet than 98% of the UKs population

[sidicks]

Sylvaforever said:

"potential for huge political damage"

Not nearly that as the disgraceful cuts to the disabled .

Agreed though, that they really are living on a different planet than 98% of the UKs population

The real disabled or those that claim to be?

[anonymous-user]

Sylvaforever said:

I had my doubts when the election was called but with the latest "hints from hammond" I'm becoming convinced she doesn't actually want to win it!

If you think that's bad, the Beeb website is currently leading with a story that Tm has said there will be no cuts to foreign aid but the state pension may be cut.

I don't really care about either of those personally (unlike Hammond's hints) but even so I can see that they are not exactly enticing voter-friendly messages.

Were the Tories expecting some sort of terrorist attack today which would bury these announcements?

[hidetheelephants]

Greg66 said:

Sylvaforever said:

I had my doubts when the election was called but with the latest "hints from hammond" I'm becoming convinced she doesn't actually want to win it!

If you think that's bad, the Beeb website is currently leading with a story that Tm has said there will be no cuts to foreign aid but the state pension may be cut.

What a load of pish from the BBC, there's not been any such statement; from hints dropped it's possible that the triple lock will be removed but given that's increasingly viewed as overly generous it doesn't seem like a massively contentious issue. Such an act would not be a pension cut, it potentially reduces the rate at which pensions rise with inflation.

[johnxjsc1985]

hidetheelephants said:

What a load of pish from the BBC, there's not been any such statement; from hints dropped it's possible that the triple lock will be removed but given that's increasingly viewed as overly generous it doesn't seem like a massively contentious issue. Such an act would not be a pension cut, it potentially reduces the rate at which pensions rise with inflation.

but it would be suicide to upset the grey voters who always turn out in large numbers every election. Even a hint of this could be very costly.

[AmitG]

johnxjsc1985 said:

it would be suicide to upset the grey voters who always turn out in large numbers every election

The thing is, this time round, who else are the "grey voters" going to vote for?

I don't know what the government will do, but it seems to me that given its current polling position, it can afford to play a little hardball with its core base.