Election 2019

[Leithen]

Sway said:

Have a look at the last election results, and quite how close many critical constituencies were...

In some cases, fraud of less than 0.01% of the electorate is enough to change the result.

There have always been close results in constituencies.

Is there any indication of greater or more widespread fraud in this election?

[Steve vRS]

Dont like rolls said:

Steve vRS said:

I would have loved to see Brillo tearing lumps out of the inept Johnson. The only thing that will keep him in power is Corbyn. And that is no way to choose a leader.

Easy to say but answer this

WHO would you choose as a leader for the Uk ? (forget about the party for this exercise)

I’m trying to think of the failed Tory leadership candidates and I don’t think any of them would have been a suitable candidate. It really is a dire situation.

[chrispmartha]

Steve vRS said:

Dont like rolls said:

Steve vRS said:

I would have loved to see Brillo tearing lumps out of the inept Johnson. The only thing that will keep him in power is Corbyn. And that is no way to choose a leader.

Easy to say but answer this

WHO would you choose as a leader for the Uk ? (forget about the party for this exercise)

I’m trying to think of the failed Tory leadership candidates and I don’t think any of them would have been a suitable candidate. It really is a dire situation.

Personally I thought Rory Stewart was the best candidate.

[oyster]

crankedup said:

Why do train operators run such complex ticket pricing, I can appreciate that journeys at commuter times may be more expensive than at non rush two hour times but why the wide variety of prices outside of those time blocks?

You mean why they operate the same as:

Airlines
Hotels
Car Rental Companies
Sports ticketing
Consultant pricing
etc etc?

Basically like most of the modern world.

[Smollet]

Mort7 said:

Did you watch the Marr interview of Johnson? It was entirely pointless because Marr would ask the next question before Johnson had had sufficient time to answer the previous one. At one point Marr accused Johnson of failing to answer a question that he had in fact answered - such was his foaming-at-the-mouth partisan rage. Compare that to his interviews on the same program with Chukka and Shameless.

I would like to see interviews where politicians are allowed to answer the questions fully, whilst being kept on-track, not interviews where it's all about the interviewer looking to score points. The only character trait that the Marr interview brought out was his own lack of self control.

Marr was dire. He was like some child who’d just been informed that they weren’t going to get any Xmas presents this year such was his hysterical outburst. I never thought he was capable of such demeaning behaviour. It was a pathetic display.

[Pan Pan Pan]

I think Andrew Neil is pretty good at digging into his `guests' but he, any and every interviewer must try to give the person being interviewed, a chance to reply to a question.
I think If I had been subjected to the interview techniques that seem to be increasingly applied these days, I would just sit there not saying a single word, until the interviewer finally decides to shut up and then, and only then make a reply.

[Digga]

chrispmartha said:

Steve vRS said:

Dont like rolls said:

Steve vRS said:

I would have loved to see Brillo tearing lumps out of the inept Johnson. The only thing that will keep him in power is Corbyn. And that is no way to choose a leader.

Easy to say but answer this

WHO would you choose as a leader for the Uk ? (forget about the party for this exercise)

I’m trying to think of the failed Tory leadership candidates and I don’t think any of them would have been a suitable candidate. It really is a dire situation.

Personally I thought Rory Stewart was the best candidate.

A bit wet, middle class and typical political.

Conservatives need to break the mould and get someone more relatable up front. I've always thought Javid was their best bet, although in fairness, I wish he were still Home Sec, as that post seemed in safe hands under his brief stint.

[Mort7]

bhstewie said:

Mort7 said:

Did you watch the Marr interview of Johnson? It was entirely pointless because Marr would ask the next question before Johnson had had sufficient time to answer the previous one. At one point Marr accused Johnson of failing to answer a question that he had in fact answered - such was his foaming-at-the-mouth partisan rage. Compare that to his interviews on the same program with Chukka and Shameless.

I would like to see interviews where politicians are allowed to answer the questions fully, whilst being kept on-track, not interviews where it's all about the interviewer looking to score points. The only character trait that the Marr interview brought out was his own lack of self control.

Yes I did and Marr did very badly.

Interviews don't always go well.

But let's not use one or two bad interviews as some kind of defence for Johnson scurrying away from 30 minutes with Andrew Neil.

I don't believe that Johnson is scurrying away, I think it's a considered decision - and probably the right one from his perspective. It’s all about giving himself the best chance of winning, and a hostile Andrew Neil interview won't help with that.

[crankedup]

oyster said:

crankedup said:

Why do train operators run such complex ticket pricing, I can appreciate that journeys at commuter times may be more expensive than at non rush two hour times but why the wide variety of prices outside of those time blocks?

You mean why they operate the same as:

Airlines
Hotels
Car Rental Companies
Sports ticketing
Consultant pricing
etc etc?

Basically like most of the modern world.

I understand the point you make, but you miss the key factors in the argument namely the Rail service is a vital part of the U.K. infrastructure and economy.. It can be argued that airlines form this function. your other examples are in the main a matter of choice to consumer and a wide group of competitors exist within each field of work.
The ‘modern World’ should be offering a service amongst genuine competition, the rail service is not in a genuine competitive market.

[bitchstewie]

Mort7 said:

I don't believe that Johnson is scurrying away, I think it's a considered decision - and probably the right one from his perspective. It’s all about giving himself the best chance of winning, and a hostile Andrew Neil interview won't help with that.

I think it's quite possible to be both considered and a coward at the same time.

The two aren't exclusive.

[67Dino]

Pan Pan Pan said:

I think Andrew Neil is pretty good at digging into his `guests' but he, any and every interviewer must try to give the person being interviewed, a chance to reply to a question.
I think If I had been subjected to the interview techniques that seem to be increasingly applied these days, I would just sit there not saying a single word, until the interviewer finally decides to shut up and then, and only then make a reply.

Think the issue is that the interviewer and interviewee have different objectives these days. In times past, they were both trying to meet a public service objective of informing the public. Today, the interviewer is aiming to make a name for themselves by getting a scoop, or at least a newsworthy slip-up. The interviewee is aiming to get a pre-determined message across, whatever is asked. Neither are especially looking to inform the public.

For this reason BoJo is right not to do the Andrew Neil interview, as it may well fit Neil’s objectives but is unlikely to fulfil his. The loser as a result of both of them behaving like this is us, the electorate.

[Digga]

bhstewie said:

Mort7 said:

I don't believe that Johnson is scurrying away, I think it's a considered decision - and probably the right one from his perspective. It’s all about giving himself the best chance of winning, and a hostile Andrew Neil interview won't help with that.

I think it's quite possible to be both considered and a coward at the same time.

The two aren't exclusive.

His objective, as leader of the Conservative party, is to win the election, not tick every TV and radio interview box. It's pretty simple. If the calculated decision is that more harm than good might potentially come from any interview, why do it? For whose benefit?

Picking one's battles is key.

[bitchstewie]

Digga said:

His objective, as leader of the Conservative party, is to win the election, not tick every TV and radio interview box. It's pretty simple. If the calculated decision is that more harm than good might potentially come from any interview, why do it? For whose benefit?

Picking one's battles is key.

And tactically I might agree with every word of that.

It doesn't mean he isn't a coward for not doing so.

Prime Minister but can't cope with 30 minutes of scrutiny from Andrew Neil.

Seriously?

Christ.

[Helicopter123]

Dont like rolls said:

Steve vRS said:

I would have loved to see Brillo tearing lumps out of the inept Johnson. The only thing that will keep him in power is Corbyn. And that is no way to choose a leader.

Easy to say but answer this

WHO would you choose as a leader for the Uk ? (forget about the party for this exercise)

Yvette Cooper
Rory Stewart
Chuka
Ed Miliband
The other Miliband brother
Vince Cable

Any of the above would be better than the three "leaders" we are being offered a choice of.

[don'tbesilly]

booboise blueboys said:

Oh ffs. Johnson's disastrous campaign rolls on and the gap narrows further. He is hopeless. Hung parliament here we come.

Westminster voting intention:

CON: 44% (-)
LAB: 32% (+4)
LDEM: 13% (-3)
GRN: 3% (-)
BREX: 2% (-1)

via @IpsosMORI, 02 - 04 Dec
Chgs. w/ Nov

https://t.co/m1hoBpI81D

Johnson was down to 9% the poll above has Johnson on 12% and the gap is narrowing further?

[HustleRussell]

bhstewie said:

Mort7 said:

Johnson

coward

The man has an utterly improbable amount of swagger. Dangerous amounts.

[turbobloke]

Ipsos MORI for the Evening Standard, poll to 04 December, sample 1,545

44% Conservatives
32% Labour
13% LibDems
05% SNP
03% Greens
02% TBP

[Crafty_]

Digga said:

His objective, as leader of the Conservative party, is to win the election, not tick every TV and radio interview box. It's pretty simple. If the calculated decision is that more harm than good might potentially come from any interview, why do it? For whose benefit?

Picking one's battles is key.

So every time that a tricky situation arises our PM is going to run away and hide ?

How statesman like.

[booboise blueboys]

turbobloke said:

Ipsos MORI for the Evening Standard, poll to 04 December, sample 1,545

44% Conservatives
32% Labour
13% LibDems
05% SNP
03% Greens
02% TBP

Johnson on the ropes.

[bitchstewie]

Crafty_ said:

Digga said:

His objective, as leader of the Conservative party, is to win the election, not tick every TV and radio interview box. It's pretty simple. If the calculated decision is that more harm than good might potentially come from any interview, why do it? For whose benefit?

Picking one's battles is key.

So every time that a tricky situation arises our PM is going to run away and hide ?

How statesman like.

Only from troublesome journalists.

Negotiating with the likes of the EU, Xi, Putin and Trump will be a walk in the park compared to 30 minutes with Andrew Neil.

Brave Boris.