[Politics] Next Conservative Leader - Rishi Sunak

[TomandJerry]

 

[Hugo Rune]

Just Mr Johnson left to declare.

He won’t declare until he reaches 100 backers. Fingers crossed he gets nowhere near because
if he and Rishi then go to the membership, Johnson will win by a landslide.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Because politicians notoriously don’t answer direct questions. They try to cause deflection by starting off with what they perceive as context but is often waffle and bluster.

The comparison you give is strange, I don’t think you can compare Kuenssberg trying to squeeze a straight answer out of Mordaunt or a Policy out of Sir Keir with an interview with a journalist on historic facts.

When I had a leadership role in a research society I was given media training. One key part of this is we are told to remember what point it is we want to make, and, after complimenting the questioner for their interesting question (insight, and lovely blouse), you explain (mansplain) what the real issue is and what it was you wanted to say about it.

All interviewers know this. The good ones have tricks to force you to answer them. The default response is to reply with the rinse and repeat. This makes for an infuriating listen. The interviewee can often come across as a robotic arse if the interviewer is clever, or a resolute and statesmanlike political giant if the interviewer is not.

Incidentally, contrast this with Truss who either recited a scripted answer that made no sense in relation to the question or sat blinking and answering in a monosyllabic trance-like state when she was unprepared for the interview (which was most of the time).

 

[Bodian]

Just Mr Johnson left to declare.

He won’t declare until he reaches 100 backers. Fingers crossed he gets nowhere near because
if he and Rishi then go to the membership, Johnson will win by a landslide.

You mean the announcement yesterday that he had the 100 backers already was possibly untrue?? Surely not.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Why do interviewers in Britain have politicians on their show, ask them questions, and don't give them the time to answer them?

Laura Kuenssberg did that with Penny Mordaunt and Keir Starmer. I could see Keir Starmer rushing his answers, because he knew at any moment, Laura K. would be talking over him, asking her next question.

A few weeks ago, I saw an interview with a Russian-American journalist, being interviewed by an American, giving her accounts of how Putin rose to power. It was an absolutely superb interview, not least because she was given the time and space to give full, considered answers.

Interrupting someone when they are giving a perfectly sensible answer is very poor show. Andrew Neil used to do it.

Interrupting someone who is not answering the question is understandable but risky. It works only if it is clear the interviewee is not answering the question. Otherwise it makes the interviewer sound like a bully and an arse.

The thing I hate most is when an interviewer asks a question and doesn't listen to the answer, and doesn't pick up on an absurdity, and lets the interviewer get away with making false statements. Adrian Chiles did this a year ago when interviewing someone (it may have been a solicitor acting for the police) about Hillsborough. This person invoked a false trope blaming the victims for their deaths, and Chiles missed this. Here, I have found a link:

BBC apologises for Hillsborough comments on Adrian Chiles' radio show

A lawyer claimed Liverpool fans caused a 'riot' ahead of the Hillsborough disaster.

metro.co.uk

The moral of that story is don't let someone with ADHD (he has spoken about this) do important interviews with contentious people. If that sounds harsh, if you don't recognize your limitations you will end up where you shouldn't be. My own 'neurodiversity' precludes me from certain types of leadership role, and I'm quite relaxed about that, now I understand it.

 

[Randy McNob]

Maybe the public prefer Johnson because he'll get Brexit done, after all he got Brexit done once already so has the experience?

 

[WATFORD zero]

Someone far closer to this than me tells me they are absolutely desperate to get a result without going to the membership.

Apparently there is some concern that setting up a secure method (against various groups with nefarious aims) of getting the current Conservative Party membership (Average age 72) to electronically vote may prove to be a little bit of a challenge in under a week

I really can't see any porblems with this plan

 

[Randy McNob]

shapeshifting explained.....

 

[KZNSeagull]

Why do interviewers in Britain have politicians on their show, ask them questions, and don't give them the time to answer them?

Laura Kuenssberg did that with Penny Mordaunt and Keir Starmer. I could see Keir Starmer rushing his answers, because he knew at any moment, Laura K. would be talking over him, asking her next question.

A few weeks ago, I saw an interview with a Russian-American journalist, being interviewed by an American, giving her accounts of how Putin rose to power. It was an absolutely superb interview, not least because she was given the time and space to give full, considered answers.

The best interview show on at the moment is Political Thinking with Nick Robinson. LK is always trying to get a scoop and this modern trait of demanding yes/no answers is ridiculous and pandering to the twitter generation when most topics are far more complicated than that.

 

[peterward]

Thought Penny Mourdant really poor on the Laura show this morning - just like Truss but with better hair!!

I didn't think that tbh. The bits about it not being about parties, politicians or westminster bubble but rather the electorates struggles was imho the right tone.

Nobody is going to make uncosted policy decisions on the hoof because a journo pushes them...... And she, imho was better than autocue Kier, Who sounds like a pull string toy with scripted responses.

He too wouldn't be drawn on specifics and offered mere generalisations.

I'm glad the labour party has moved centre left and it will likely get my vote, but still think Starmer is a wet lettuce.

 

[Guinness Boy]

The best interview show on at the moment is Political Thinking with Nick Robinson. LK is always trying to get a scoop and this modern trait of demanding yes/no answers is ridiculous and pandering to the twitter generation when most topics are far more complicated than that.

Not to mention that she's a raging Tory.

 

[Eric the meek]

Interrupting someone when they are giving a perfectly sensible answer is very poor show. Andrew Neil used to do it.

Interrupting someone who is not answering the question is understandable but risky. It works only if it is clear the interviewee is not answering the question. Otherwise it makes the interviewer sound like a bully and an arse.

The thing I hate most is when an interviewer asks a question and doesn't listen to the answer, and doesn't pick up on an absurdity, and lets the interviewer get away with making false statements. Adrian Chiles did this a year ago when interviewing someone (it may have been a solicitor acting for the police) about Hillsborough. This person invoked a false trope blaming the victims for their deaths, and Chiles missed this. Here, I have found a link:

BBC apologises for Hillsborough comments on Adrian Chiles' radio show

A lawyer claimed Liverpool fans caused a 'riot' ahead of the Hillsborough disaster.

metro.co.uk

The moral of that story is don't let someone with ADHD (he has spoken about this) do important interviews with contentious people. If that sounds harsh, if you don't recognize your limitations you will end up where you shouldn't be. My own 'neurodiversity' precludes me from certain types of leadership role, and I'm quite relaxed about that, now I understand it.

Yes, I agree with all of that.

The Adrian Chiles example is an interesting one, and a lesson in the value of listening, ADHD notwithstanding. Or to be more precise, the cost of not listening. If you are transmitting, interrupting, talking over someone, or just planning your next question, you are not listening. The Laura Kuenssberg Show isn't about her. It's about her guests. Listen, rather than transmit.

Of course, if the interviewee repeatedly fails to answer the question, then it's open season. The legendary Paxman-Howard interview is a case in point. Howard got nailed, and rightly so.

 

[peterward]

Just Mr Johnson left to declare.

He won’t declare until he reaches 100 backers. Fingers crossed he gets nowhere near because
if he and Rishi then go to the membership, Johnson will win by a landslide.

We'll be back here again in a month once ethics committee is in full swing and party gate testimonies make him untenable 2.0.

You really do have to wonder about the judgement of those who'd bring back Boris or vote in a public school billionaire.

Out of touch the lot of them.

#GetPartygateDone

 

[Guinness Boy]

I didn't think that tbh. The bits about it not being about parties, politicians or westminster bubble but rather the electorates struggles was imho the right tone.

Nobody is going to make uncosted policy decisions on the hoof because a journo pushes them...... And she, imho was better than autocue Kier, Who sounds like a pull string toy with scripted responses.

He too wouldn't be drawn on specifics and offered mere generalisations.

I'm glad the labour party has moved centre left and it will likely get my vote, but still think Starmer is a wet lettuce.

If we've learned anything from the past week, it's that wet lettuces who do very little are still more effective than Tory Prime Ministers

 

[smiler]

Maybe the public prefer Johnson because he'll get Brexit done, after all he got Brexit done once already so has the experience?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

The Conservative MP for Peterborough isn't the sharpest tool in the box.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

And another one - proving they just copy each other, instead of thinking for themselves.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

I fear this isn't going to end well. The parliamentary party will be very much in favour of Rishi (quite rightly IMHO - through the Covid turmoil years he at least showed he knew what he was doing!) and will offer the 167,000(?)ish Tory party members (less those who are not on Smart phones or t'internet) the choice of Rishi and one other.

The 167,000 will then vote for whichever one isn't non-white. Same reason the worst elements of the Tory party membership voted for Truss, even though she was hopelessly out of her depth (to put it kindly - I wouldn't be so kind!)

It’s wrong it goes to the membership, the MPs are the ones that see them up close and what they are capable of.

Doesn’t mean they will get it right, but I would trust them more than the party voting.

 

[beorhthelm]

It’s wrong it goes to the membership, the MPs are the ones that see them up close and what they are capable of.

Doesn’t mean they will get it right, but I would trust them more than the party voting.

trouble with the membership is they're easily sold on tax cuts even if they are not the beneficaries or they dont help the situation. idealism over pragmatism. same energy as calls to nationalise anything within Labour ranks. they get sold on easy to say difficult to deliver policies.

 

[Bob!]

Just Mr Johnson left to declare.

He won’t declare until he reaches 100 backers. Fingers crossed he gets nowhere near because
if he and Rishi then go to the membership, Johnson will win by a landslide.

I reckon if Johnson gets the 100, then Sunak pulls out and sits back while MPs resign, cross the floor, and Johnson tries to put a cabinet together.

Then Sunak wins the leadership the week after!