'Leadership' debate

[JCL666]

Even the editor of the New Statesman thought it was biased. Bloody Red Tory/Blue Labour...whatever you crazy cats call anyone who isn't politically pure of thought and deed.

[tweet]870000749660557312[/tweet]

I don't know if the method by which the audience was selected has been posted but anyway http://www.comresglobal.com/comres-recruitment-for-the-bbc-tv-debate-31-may-2017/

And as pointed out by the ComRes founder here http://www.comresglobal.com/comres-recruitment-for-the-bbc-tv-debate-31-may-2017/ If the "left leaning" speakers outnumber the right then the cheering etc is likely to be skewed accordingly.

 

[Buzzer]

I don't know if the method by which the audience was selected has been posted but anyway http://www.comresglobal.com/comres-recruitment-for-the-bbc-tv-debate-31-may-2017/

And as pointed out by the ComRes founder here http://www.comresglobal.com/comres-recruitment-for-the-bbc-tv-debate-31-may-2017/ If the "left leaning" speakers outnumber the right then the cheering etc is likely to be skewed accordingly.

I don't doubt that ComRes selected them but the way in which Corbyn was cheered on right at the beginning smelt awful fishy if that was a cross-section. And it doesn't really matter how many parties were there. If it was a true cross-section then over half would have been Brexit supporters (I sincerely doubt even a quarter were in that audience) and nearly half (at least 40%) should have been Tory. Fair play to Labour for blagging this one but that wasn't representative.

 

[Napper]

BBC normally heavily backs the Gov (as does most the media) so interesting that a few are complaining now.

 

[glasfryn]

or on the other hand maybe its that they just like JC and are all a bit sick of the personal abuse
or maybe he just has people who like someone who speaks to people like people and not playground children .........................Oh hang on that cannot be right she was not there she was chatting to one fisherman somewhere in the West.

people like him .................get over it

 

[drew]

That's true. All of it but I would still like that question asked. It's not a difficult question to come up with. I have been waiting for it for over a week now and it hasn't happened ''Why cant you do both'' ?

It is a very good and valid question but as she won't answer any question directly then I feel it is a question that will remain unanswered.

 

[Triggaaar]

She states that she would rather be out speaking to voters on the doorstep but she is not on people's doorsteps at 8pm at night. Someone really needs to say to her - ''Why can't you do both'' ?

You'd just get a dull answer, it wouldn't make a difference what she said. Leaders don't just turn up for a debate like that without preparation, the whole thing takes many hours - she'd just say she's busy running the country, preparing for Brexit talks, meeting voters face to face etc. She's not going to give you an honest answer, so what's the point caring what excuse she makes.

 

[Ⓩ-Ⓐ-Ⓜ-Ⓞ-Ⓡ-Ⓐ]

Caroline Lucas was brilliant. Shame she's not a front runner. I also thought the Scottish fella spoke very well.

 

[Soulman]

I don't doubt that ComRes selected them but the way in which Corbyn was cheered on right at the beginning smelt awful fishy if that was a cross-section. And it doesn't really matter how many parties were there. If it was a true cross-section then over half would have been Brexit supporters (I sincerely doubt even a quarter were in that audience) and nearly half (at least 40%) should have been Tory. Fair play to Labour for blagging this one but that wasn't representative.

I don't think we are the only ones with this opinion.

 

[Tubby-McFat-Fuc]

Caroline Lucas was brilliant.

She can be. She can promise what we wants, as her party will end up with one seat. Didn't see the point of her or UKIP being there. No the limb dems for that matter, they'll be lucky to get in double figures.

 

[Diablo]

Caroline Lucas was brilliant. Shame she's not a front runner. I also thought the Scottish fella spoke very well.

Caroline Lucas was brilliant....and the scottish fella (do you mean Nicola sturgeon) was brilliant....FFS have you been drinking

 

[One Love]

Caroline Lucas was brilliant....and the scottish fella (do you mean Nicola sturgeon) was brilliant....FFS have you been drinking

He doesn't mean Nicola Sturgeon because she wasn't there. Have you been drinking?

 

[Diablo]

He doesn't mean Nicola Sturgeon because he wasn't there. Have you been drinking?

certainly have...hic

 

[Buzzer]

I don't know if the method by which the audience was selected has been posted but anyway http://www.comresglobal.com/comres-recruitment-for-the-bbc-tv-debate-31-may-2017/

And as pointed out by the ComRes founder here http://www.comresglobal.com/comres-recruitment-for-the-bbc-tv-debate-31-may-2017/ If the "left leaning" speakers outnumber the right then the cheering etc is likely to be skewed accordingly.

The Chap from ComRes was on the TV earlier defending the audience mix. He said that they'd analysed voter reactions throughout and stood by it as being representative. Apparently half clapped when the Tories spoke and half when Labour but that it appeared skewed because the Tories in the crowd weren't so noisy, vociferous and confrontational as the Labour part of the crowd. I've no inclination to re-watch the programme but it seems credible so I'm happy to go along with that.

The orchestrated hero's welcome for Corbyn outside the programme was plain ridiculous but fair play to Labour there. Other parties should have guessed that it would happen and try to disrupt or prepare their own display but they didn't.

Edit - This is in answer to [MENTION=28490]Machiavelli[/MENTION] too.

 

[Machiavelli]

The Chap from ComRes was on the TV earlier defending the audience mix. He said that they'd analysed voter reactions throughout and stood by it as being representative. Apparently half clapped when the Tories spoke and half when Labour but that it appeared skewed because the Tories in the crowd weren't so noisy, vociferous and confrontational as the Labour part of the crowd. I've no inclination to re-watch the programme but it seems credible so I'm happy to go along with that.

The orchestrated hero's welcome for Corbyn outside the programme was plain ridiculous but fair play to Labour there. Other parties should have guessed that it would happen and try to disrupt or prepare their own display but they didn't.

Edit - This is in answer to [MENTION=28490]Machiavelli[/MENTION] too.

Agree with all that, although I must confess I didn't really notice Amber being clapped who, to repeat, I thought did OK in a very hostile format (I'm speaking of the number of panellists obviously against her, as much as the vociferousness of the audience). So, not so much an answer, but more loving agreement.

 

[Buzzer]

Agree with all that, although I must confess I didn't really notice Amber being clapped who, to repeat, I thought did OK in a very hostile format (I'm speaking of the number of panellists obviously against her, as much as the vociferousness of the audience). So, not so much an answer, but more loving agreement.

Given that, maybe it's understandable why May opts out of these types of debate. She's nothing to gain at all by being part of it, it's just one huge bear trap after another for her. For us too as voters, they're more entertainment than information. The one-to-one interviews are where it's at.

 

[NooBHA]

You'd just get a dull answer, it wouldn't make a difference what she said. Leaders don't just turn up for a debate like that without preparation, the whole thing takes many hours - she'd just say she's busy running the country, preparing for Brexit talks, meeting voters face to face etc. She's not going to give you an honest answer, so what's the point caring what excuse she makes.

Triggaaar. That's perfect answer. However the reason I wanted the question asked was because I wanted her to be exposed on 1pm or 6pm or 10pm news for what she is . A LIAR

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...rump-waltzing-on-islington-wall-a3469211.html

 

[Triggaaar]

Triggaaar. That's perfect answer. However the reason I wanted the question asked was because I wanted her to be exposed on 1pm or 6pm or 10pm news for what she is . A LIAR

All politicians are liars, it's what they do, and if she'd given one of the made up excuses it wouldn't have exposed her, you can't prove the reason she didn't take part.

 

[Machiavelli]

Given that, maybe it's understandable why May opts out of these types of debate. She's nothing to gain at all by being part of it, it's just one huge bear trap after another for her. For us too as voters, they're more entertainment than information. The one-to-one interviews are where it's at.

I do agree with the first part, but not the second. Debates were initiated by Gordon Brown, and have subsequently been rejected or watered down by two Tory PMs. The first debate had the (then) big(gish) three parties, and it worked pretty well. The current polls indicate that this election is bizarrely returning a two party predominance (that voting system strikes back), and I think this very much lends itself to May and Corbyn debating together.

 

[Machiavelli]

All politicians are liars, it's what they do, and if she'd given one of the made up excuses it wouldn't have exposed her, you can't prove the reason she didn't take part.

No, they're not. They might be evasive or 'economical with the truth', but that's something entirely different from lying. Statements like this are corrosive of representative democracy, a form I'm not particularly attached to, but it is what we have, and there's no point eroding it unless there's a better system that's poised to take over.

 

[Triggaaar]

No, they're not. They might be evasive or 'economical with the truth'

I disagree.