Boris Johnson- Prime Minister (Vol. 3)
Discussion
La Liga said:
Neil would destroy Johnson.
Tactically it's less damaging for him to dodge the interview rather than do it, so it makes sense in that context.
Still lame of him, though.
Exactly. A well considered view.Tactically it's less damaging for him to dodge the interview rather than do it, so it makes sense in that context.
Still lame of him, though.
No need to be carping on about "cowardice"....does nothing for the debate other than drag it further down.
It's a tactical position that he and his team will think works best for him. We'll see in a week's time if they were correct. But I have a horrible feeling we're going to end up with what we had before the GE.
Much as I don't especially like any of the party leaders, and all have serious personal flaws, "cowardice" isn't really one of them when you consider what they are doing.
Agree it's lame. I would much prefer our prospective leader understood the details of what he is standing for enough not to get skewered by an interviewer. But in such a polarised world as we currently live in, I'm not sure that's possible. It's all too easy to play the devil's advocate. Our media do not encourage openness and honesty, more's the pity.
ChevyChase77 said:
Corbyn as PM and Abbott as home secretary. It's a frightening thought. Still, Diane said she could put 10,000 extra police offices on the streets for only £30,000.
Whereas Johnson will build 40 new Hospitals and recruit 50,000 nurses presumably?Abbott got tongue tied in an interview whereas Boris is deliberately lying.
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: I think you have to also apply that to the sort of pressure situations a leader might find themselves in that have much more far reaching consequences than a mild bruising from Andrew Neil or Julie Etchingham.
Trump, Putin, Xi, god forbid something that requires a snap decision relating to our national security or a terrorist event.
They are not comparable situations IMO.Trump, Putin, Xi, god forbid something that requires a snap decision relating to our national security or a terrorist event.
smn159 said:
ChevyChase77 said:
Corbyn as PM and Abbott as home secretary. It's a frightening thought. Still, Diane said she could put 10,000 extra police offices on the streets for only £30,000.
Whereas Johnson will build 40 new Hospitals and recruit 50,000 nurses presumably?Abbott got tongue tied in an interview whereas Boris is deliberately lying.
It's OK, really. If Boris loses the election his detractors far and wide can claim it was due to either not being interviewed by Andrew Neil or being interviewed by Neil and getting tongue-tied.
Murph7355 said:
No need to be carping on about "cowardice"....does nothing for the debate other than drag it further down.
Let's face it refusing to do an interview because everyone knows you're a fking liar is hardly raising the standard of debate is it.I get that it might be a "tactical" position.
But if your problem is that you are so awful at telling the truth and looking trustworthy that your best option is not to put yourself in a position where you might be expected to tell the truth or look trustworthy, I'd also call it cowardice.
The two aren't mutually exclusive IMO.
Murph7355 said:
Exactly. A well considered view.
No need to be carping on about "cowardice"....does nothing for the debate other than drag it further down.
It's a tactical position that he and his team will think works best for him. We'll see in a week's time if they were correct. But I have a horrible feeling we're going to end up with what we had before the GE.
Much as I don't especially like any of the party leaders, and all have serious personal flaws, "cowardice" isn't really one of them when you consider what they are doing.
Agree it's lame. I would much prefer our prospective leader understood the details of what he is standing for enough not to get skewered by an interviewer. But in such a polarised world as we currently live in, I'm not sure that's possible. It's all too easy to play the devil's advocate. Our media do not encourage openness and honesty, more's the pity.
We won’t see whether it worked in a week’s time. The election is not decided on just BJ deciding which interviews to duck. No need to be carping on about "cowardice"....does nothing for the debate other than drag it further down.
It's a tactical position that he and his team will think works best for him. We'll see in a week's time if they were correct. But I have a horrible feeling we're going to end up with what we had before the GE.
Much as I don't especially like any of the party leaders, and all have serious personal flaws, "cowardice" isn't really one of them when you consider what they are doing.
Agree it's lame. I would much prefer our prospective leader understood the details of what he is standing for enough not to get skewered by an interviewer. But in such a polarised world as we currently live in, I'm not sure that's possible. It's all too easy to play the devil's advocate. Our media do not encourage openness and honesty, more's the pity.
It is clearly “tactical”, because he’s a liability when there’s a two way dialogue. He’s a liar, he’s massively removed from any details and has, or is perceived to have, skeletons (which are no longer) in the cupboard, which journalists love trying to debate with him.
He’s a shoot from the hip type, which is dangerous for him in interviews, and dangerous for the country if he “leads” it.
For the avoidance of doubt, Corbyn is also bad for the country IMV.
Choices choices.
IforB said:
Uncle John said:
It’s not compulsory to do interviews, particularly when you do not need to.
Well obviously... However, not doing interviews has a knock on effect. It means that you appear to be withholding information from or hiding away from the voting public.
Whilst it is undoubtedly a strategy, it is a cynical and dishonest one and I struggle to see how that is in any way a good thing.
As Brillo himself said, if Johnson has to go toe to toe with people like Putin, Xi, Trump and other world leaders, then surely a Journo should be no issue?
The only conclusion that can be reached is that Johnson is scared of being put under scrutiny, they think him actually talking will do more damage than good, which is pretty crap whichever way you look at it.
At least that would be a better body part.
Johnson, for all that he is hailed as the great hope of attracting people to the party, seems to be a danger to his own party, to the extent that they don't let him out at night.
Vanden Saab said:
ChevyChase77 said:
Corbyn has ducked out of doing an interview with LBC. It's funny all this obsession with doing all these interviews. Just get on with the job IMO.
It is just another big red bus and the same people fall for it time and time again. Rather than concentrating on things that actually matter to people they are going on and on about Boris not doing an interview. Dom must be laughing his socks off. No one is going to walk into the polling booth and think 'do you know what, I am not going to vote Conservative because Boris didn't do an interview with Andrew Neil'More to the point no one is going to vote for Corbyn or Swinson because they did.
IforB said:
Vanden Saab said:
ChevyChase77 said:
Corbyn has ducked out of doing an interview with LBC. It's funny all this obsession with doing all these interviews. Just get on with the job IMO.
It is just another big red bus and the same people fall for it time and time again. Rather than concentrating on things that actually matter to people they are going on and on about Boris not doing an interview. Dom must be laughing his socks off. No one is going to walk into the polling booth and think 'do you know what, I am not going to vote Conservative because Boris didn't do an interview with Andrew Neil'More to the point no one is going to vote for Corbyn or Swinson because they did.
People voting and making decisions without having all the information is hardly something to celebrate is it.
smn159 said:
ChevyChase77 said:
Corbyn as PM and Abbott as home secretary. It's a frightening thought. Still, Diane said she could put 10,000 extra police offices on the streets for only £30,000.
Whereas Johnson will build 40 new Hospitals and recruit 50,000 nurses presumably?Abbott got tongue tied in an interview whereas Boris is deliberately lying.
ChevyChase77 said:
How many interviews do they need to do before you have all the information? Just re-watch some of the other interviews or read the manifesto.
It’s hard to believe, but not everyone is going to read the manifesto. Some people like to be informed through interviews, and some people like certain interviewers. Most of us are sick to the back teeth of lying politicians and want someone to at least try to elicit some truth from the slippery eels. Let’s not pretend this is anything other than damage limitation for BJ.
Vanden Saab said:
ChevyChase77 said:
Corbyn has ducked out of doing an interview with LBC. It's funny all this obsession with doing all these interviews. Just get on with the job IMO.
It is just another big red bus and the same people fall for it time and time again. Rather than concentrating on things that actually matter to people they are going on and on about Boris not doing an interview. Dom must be laughing his socks off. No one is going to walk into the polling booth and think 'do you know what, I am not going to vote Conservative because Boris didn't do an interview with Andrew Neil'More to the point no one is going to vote for Corbyn or Swinson because they did.
People who aren’t sure about Boris or maybe think he's a bit untrustworthy or evasive then they see him avoid AN when the other candidates have all gone in and answered his questions.
Obviously people aren’t going to vote based on whether he did an interview with Andrew Neil but it does matter.
The fact is that Boris didn’t do the interview because his team know that it would likely be damaging to him. Not because he’s too busy running the country.
ChevyChase77 said:
Vanden Saab said:
ChevyChase77 said:
Corbyn has ducked out of doing an interview with LBC. It's funny all this obsession with doing all these interviews. Just get on with the job IMO.
It is just another big red bus and the same people fall for it time and time again. Rather than concentrating on things that actually matter to people they are going on and on about Boris not doing an interview. Dom must be laughing his socks off. No one is going to walk into the polling booth and think 'do you know what, I am not going to vote Conservative because Boris didn't do an interview with Andrew Neil'More to the point no one is going to vote for Corbyn or Swinson because they did.
Neil sounded like a spoilt child after the Farage interview,it was like a personal political broadcast. Mind you one could understand the upset after he failed to score many points against Farage.
don'tbesilly said:
ChevyChase77 said:
Vanden Saab said:
ChevyChase77 said:
Corbyn has ducked out of doing an interview with LBC. It's funny all this obsession with doing all these interviews. Just get on with the job IMO.
It is just another big red bus and the same people fall for it time and time again. Rather than concentrating on things that actually matter to people they are going on and on about Boris not doing an interview. Dom must be laughing his socks off. No one is going to walk into the polling booth and think 'do you know what, I am not going to vote Conservative because Boris didn't do an interview with Andrew Neil'More to the point no one is going to vote for Corbyn or Swinson because they did.
Neil sounded like a spoilt child after the Farage interview,it was like a personal political broadcast. Mind you one could understand the upset after he failed to score many points against Farage.
ChevyChase77 said:
IforB said:
Vanden Saab said:
ChevyChase77 said:
Corbyn has ducked out of doing an interview with LBC. It's funny all this obsession with doing all these interviews. Just get on with the job IMO.
It is just another big red bus and the same people fall for it time and time again. Rather than concentrating on things that actually matter to people they are going on and on about Boris not doing an interview. Dom must be laughing his socks off. No one is going to walk into the polling booth and think 'do you know what, I am not going to vote Conservative because Boris didn't do an interview with Andrew Neil'More to the point no one is going to vote for Corbyn or Swinson because they did.
People voting and making decisions without having all the information is hardly something to celebrate is it.
Since the Tory manifesto was launched, Johnson has done zero interviews of note. He has not been pushed on what it contains, he has not been questioned on how they are going to do it.
He has not had to answer questions as to why people like the IFS think it is not possible to deliver.
Then there is the fact that as a manifesto, it is pretty damned light. In fact, there is naff all in it of any substance.
Again, all of this designed to deliberately provide as little information to the voting public as possible.
So I ask again, how is this in any way shape or form, a good thing for us?
smn159 said:
IforB said:
At least with Corbyn I know he is going to come after things and I can prepare, whereas Johnson will just trash our economy through sheer incompetence and all of us will feel the pain that way.
Indeed - and how much damage has the whole Brexit debacle already done to our economy?And if you really think it's that bad, at least you're still free to move your money and family abroad.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff