May Vs Corbyn live on the telly,
Discussion
LDN said:
Despite the bickering on here... the general consensus, in simple terms, seems to be; Corbyn gained credibility and May lost credibility. I suspect the gap between them was so large beforehand that it won't make much difference come election day. Never the less; Corbyn seems to have exceeded almost everyone's expectations.
Pretty much this. I'd never vote Corbyn, for a variety of reasons, but May's performance for downright abysmal. Takes pretty tight blinkers not to see that. She was absolutely hopeless. I now understand why she didn't want to take part in a live debate.Corbyn's performance was better than expected, but that's probably due to my very low expectations from him.
lenny007 said:
///ajd said:
turbobloke said:
///ajd said:
lenny007 said:
///ajd said:
The thing is this the first time she was stretched on the "no deal" point. It was revealing and interesting if you look beyond the "yes". Its interesting as she knows many won't look past the "yes"
Is this the yes which you said she didn't say? (Twice)1. You said she didn't say "yes".
2. People illustrated that she did.
3. You then said "she said "yes" look beyond that"
4. I pointed out that you'd contradicted your earlier point.
5. You then stated i proved your point.
Is that exactly what you are saying here and attempting to claim some form of "debate victory"? That you were proved to be wrong and that means you are...right??
It is interesting to watch.
jjlynn27 said:
Pretty much this. I'd never vote Corbyn, for a variety of reasons, but May's performance for downright abysmal. Takes pretty tight blinkers not to see that. She was absolutely hopeless. I now understand why she didn't want to take part in a live debate.
Corbyn's performance was better than expected, but that's probably due to my very low expectations from him.
Setting policies aside, Corbyn is a decent orator. He doesn't struggle to fill venues, especially around these parts.Corbyn's performance was better than expected, but that's probably due to my very low expectations from him.
Trouble is, the country doesn't need a decent orator. It needs somebody who can solve complex issues in a financially-literate manner.
///ajd said:
lenny007 said:
///ajd said:
turbobloke said:
///ajd said:
lenny007 said:
///ajd said:
The thing is this the first time she was stretched on the "no deal" point. It was revealing and interesting if you look beyond the "yes". Its interesting as she knows many won't look past the "yes"
Is this the yes which you said she didn't say? (Twice)1. You said she didn't say "yes".
2. People illustrated that she did.
3. You then said "she said "yes" look beyond that"
4. I pointed out that you'd contradicted your earlier point.
5. You then stated i proved your point.
Is that exactly what you are saying here and attempting to claim some form of "debate victory"? That you were proved to be wrong and that means you are...right??
It is interesting to watch.
Then you said "she did say yes".
Now you are saying "what i'm saying hasn't changed".
Am i misrepresenting what you've typed? I mean, i can go back and directly quote if you'd prefer.
Jockman said:
Setting policies aside, Corbyn is a decent orator. He doesn't struggle to fill venues, especially around these parts.
Trouble is, the country doesn't need a decent orator. It needs somebody who can solve complex issues in a financially-literate manner.
I don think anyone can argue that he doesnt want to help the poor and disadvantaged. Trouble is, the country doesn't need a decent orator. It needs somebody who can solve complex issues in a financially-literate manner.
I also agree with him to some extent that the wealthy have too much. That the top 1% control so much of the wealth must not be right, and is a structural imbalance in the (world) economy. But i dont agree with his hate and jealousy driven policies.
covmutley said:
Jockman said:
Setting policies aside, Corbyn is a decent orator. He doesn't struggle to fill venues, especially around these parts.
Trouble is, the country doesn't need a decent orator. It needs somebody who can solve complex issues in a financially-literate manner.
I don think anyone can argue that he doesnt want to help the poor and disadvantaged. Trouble is, the country doesn't need a decent orator. It needs somebody who can solve complex issues in a financially-literate manner.
I also agree with him to some extent that the wealthy have too much. That the top 1% control so much of the wealth must not be right, and is a structural imbalance in the (world) economy. But i dont agree with his hate and jealousy driven policies.
I've got some smashing ideas but I should never be allowed to run the country!
Jockman said:
Setting policies aside, Corbyn is a decent orator. He doesn't struggle to fill venues, especially around these parts.
Trouble is, the country doesn't need a decent orator. It needs somebody who can solve complex issues in a financially-literate manner.
I didn't give him credit for being a decent orator, there is some aura of incompetence about him. It could be his appearance.Trouble is, the country doesn't need a decent orator. It needs somebody who can solve complex issues in a financially-literate manner.
I agree that country needs someone to solve issues (isn't that always the case?), but May is not that. She can read a pre-approved script well, but last night she was laughable. It's a sad state of affairs that she doesn't have a credible opposition, especially if you next to Corbyn you look pathetic.
///ajd said:
jsf said:
///ajd said:
jsf said:
///ajd said:
The fact she can't say "yes" to no deal speaks volumes - she doesn't mean it, she desperately wants a deal, but has been persuading to play the "no deal" charade.
Perhaps it is only to fool the gullible and has no real purpose in the negotiations, it does seem to work on some after all.
She did say yes, at 87 minutes into the program. She said it twice, they then pan to the audience and women on the end of the row in black dress with pendant round her neck pulls a "blimey" face.Perhaps it is only to fool the gullible and has no real purpose in the negotiations, it does seem to work on some after all.
she then says "you have to", when asked again, and expands on that.
open your eyes and ears slasher, go look at it again.
ironic that some are accusing me of sneering whilst doing that themselves (xjs post)
if you put aside the tribal slasher nonsense for one minute, she did actually reveal something of here hand.
she only ever said "no deal" quickly followed by better than no deal. she also stressed "you have to say that", which revealed (as many have commented), its just a tactic, and a rather transparent pointless one, as she just doesn't believe in no deal.
to give her more credit, she is saying it to placate the brexiteers, and this thread shows she is right to.
She said yes slasher, twice. So either you are deaf, unable to process what you don't want to hear or are being deliberately deceitful.
Its more 535i level, I gave you more credit.
The thing is this the first time she was stretched on the "no deal" point. It was revealing and interesting if you look beyond the "yes". Its interesting as she knows many won't look past the "yes", you are a case in point. I'll give her credit for that - she isn't saying it for the EU, they aren't that gullible.
Once you stop lying all the time I will show you more respect, at the moment you don't deserve any.
DT398 said:
ATG said:
Savaged on Woman's Hour. Ripped a new one.
That exchange pretty much sums up the current crop of Labour shadow cabinet members and the party in general right now. What a shambles.How can anyone think our economy would improve with that lot at the helm?
I thought that Corbyn got his vision of Utopia accross quite well, but was totally unchallenged on finances, which have to be seen as dubious given Labour's last fiasco. I was disappointed that Paxo did not pose the rather obvious question "Given you do not have the confidence of the Parliamentary Labour Party, why should the electorate have confidence in your Cabinet?"
May just did not bother to turn up. The answer to the first question about apparently changing her mind on Brexit should have been "Yes, I was part of the 48%, but my party elected me as their leader to represent the views of the 48% in the negotiations brought about by the majority of the electorate voting for Brexit"
Paxo was simply deplorable. He has clearly lost the plot about his own value in the debate.
May just did not bother to turn up. The answer to the first question about apparently changing her mind on Brexit should have been "Yes, I was part of the 48%, but my party elected me as their leader to represent the views of the 48% in the negotiations brought about by the majority of the electorate voting for Brexit"
Paxo was simply deplorable. He has clearly lost the plot about his own value in the debate.
DT398 said:
ATG said:
Savaged on Woman's Hour. Ripped a new one.
That exchange pretty much sums up the current crop of Labour shadow cabinet members and the party in general right now. What a shambles.How can anyone think our economy would improve with that lot at the helm?
garyhun said:
PurpleAki said:
Lots of bickering in here about last night.
Can we all be in agreement that Corbyn has mightily f
ked up this morning?
Except Yipper - he'll claim that Corbyn's interview has given labour another 10% in the polls Can we all be in agreement that Corbyn has mightily f
ked up this morning?
Must be true...
MaxSo said:
Do you *honestly* think it is highly important that he couldn't recall the exact figure off the top of his head?
Corbyn has exceeded expectation in his media performances so far. This was a car crash, so can't be dismissed.I would imagine he (and his advisers) got a little complacent and thought this would be an easy ride after last night.
The social media reaction will do him more harm as some of the more vociferous defenders have "accused" the interviewer of being a Zionist. That will, quite rightly, give his opponent a bone to chew on.
MaxSo said:
ATG said:
Savaged on Woman's Hour. Ripped a new one.
Can't recall figure off top of his head. Wow.And now Labour supporters are attacking the (wholly innocent) interviewer as being a Zionist. So no anti semetism there then...
Lovely day at office and its not even 2 o'clock yet...
///ajd said:
lenny007 said:
///ajd said:
turbobloke said:
///ajd said:
lenny007 said:
///ajd said:
The thing is this the first time she was stretched on the "no deal" point. It was revealing and interesting if you look beyond the "yes". Its interesting as she knows many won't look past the "yes"
Is this the yes which you said she didn't say? (Twice)1. You said she didn't say "yes".
2. People illustrated that she did.
3. You then said "she said "yes" look beyond that"
4. I pointed out that you'd contradicted your earlier point.
5. You then stated i proved your point.
Is that exactly what you are saying here and attempting to claim some form of "debate victory"? That you were proved to be wrong and that means you are...right??
It is interesting to watch.
FFS you two, can't you leave it? Your like two 5 year olds without the logic.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff