Why won't Theresa May take part in a TV debate?

[I1L2T3 10]

Is it relevant?

Do we want entertainment or do we want good governance?

Is their ability to give quick and clever answers any indication of their ability to provide good and proper ones?

 

 

It is all that any of them ever do, and have ever done for as long as I can remember.

Whatever the question, the only answers we get are "But under Labour something bad happened..." and "The global banking crash that Labour caused".

 

OK, I'm paraphrasing a bit, but why do they (or we) let her get away with it?

This is not quite the same Labour Party as the one that formed a government and neither are responsible for the banking crash.

 

I think it is relevant.

 

Leading a country requires thinking on your feet. It requires attention to detail across a wide range of areas.

 

The debates show us how good they are

[ECCOnoob 1,050]

I think it is relevant.

 

Leading a country requires thinking on your feet. It requires attention to detail across a wide range of areas.

 

The debates show us how good they are

 

Not they dont. They show who is good with witty soundbites, who has the biggest ego and who can shout the loudest.

 

Its an unwanted american import popularity contetst. Its all about personalities and performance which does very little to inform the viewers. Its ludicrous that a political leader can seriously get across any sort of cohesive message in a one hour shouting fest sporadically placed between commericals for dog food and bog roll.

 

TV debate is an extension to lazy engagement of politics for the ever increasing social media generation and a collection of dimbo dumbos.

 

People say they want to see and hear their leaders. People say they want the facts. People say they want more engagement but cannot be bothered to put the effort in.

 

TV debates is falsely described as some form of engagement but shows zip.

 

IF people were genuinely that interested in what politicians do and that interested in having a say they would watch the debates, committees and parlimentary sessions which are recorded and broadcast each and every day. If they really wanted to be engaged as much as they claim to be, then people would actually input into public committee sessions, open surgeries and corresponding with their elected representatives.

 

BUT, of course they dont. They just skim read the headlines and lap up the sensationalised TV fodder.

 

Personally, Im quite glad that May has chosen not to take part. In depth political interview and analysis is what we need not some glorified talent contest under twinkly lights.

 

An informed electorate making a decision on the facts is what we need not people voting for the ego and drama.

 

Realistically and rather sadly it wouldn't surprise me if she caves in and takes part, particuarly as she will be hounded by the media organisations with their gimmicks such as a man dressed in a chicken suit (Daily Moron) or the dark art tactics of shunned TV executives until they get their way and keep their advertising revenues up.

Edited April 26, 2017 by ECCOnoob

[apelike 10]

I think it is relevant.

 

Leading a country requires thinking on your feet. It requires attention to detail across a wide range of areas.

 

No it doesn't as the Prime-minister is just a figurehead and not expected always to know everything. A prime minister has advisors, the cabinet and others, that are in charge of specific portfolios and put forward the policies.

[Hairyloon 10]

Leading a country requires thinking on your feet.

 

Not really, countries are big, slow lumbering things. The need for split second decisions is very very rare.

 

---------- Post added 26-04-2017 at 22:08 ----------

 

No it doesn't as the Prime-minister is just a figurehead and not expected always to know everything.

That is true on both counts, but ought not to be on either.

A prime minister has advisors, the cabinet and others, that are in charge of specific portfolios and put forward the policies.

As I have said before: we should have them have an online debate. That would be a far better test of their capabilities.

[Itrytoplease 10]

No triple lock - No vote, In five years she can bring us to our knees before we have the chance to get her out.

[glennpickard 10]

Agree with Apelike and Hairyloon. Most decisions have months or weeks in front of them but the "Powers that be" can still be wide of the mark.

I don't want to see her in the debates because I don't want to see Sturgeon get any free publicity for her cause. W/o PM May a debate has no value.

 

But as an aside I think she would do well against Mr. Corbyn

[hauxwell 244]

I think May knows she is going to do well in the election, so she does not need a debate as someone as already pointed this out. Sturgeon is not my favourite person but she was good when it came to debating the Westminster elite, she showed how strong she was, and if I remember she came out on top. I am not sure May is strong enough to take her on. Although I would like to be proven wrong.

I think May is a canny lass she knows what she is doing. She has only got to make one mistake during a debate and the media would lap it up, so why risk it.

She is good at just sitting on the fence and doing nothing and it seems to pay off.

[I1L2T3 10]

Not they dont. They show who is good with witty soundbites, who has the biggest ego and who can shout the loudest.

 

Its an unwanted american import popularity contetst. Its all about personalities and performance which does very little to inform the viewers. Its ludicrous that a political leader can serious get across any sort of cohesive message in a one hour shouting fest sporadically placed between commericals for dog food and bog roll.

 

TV debate is an extension to lazy engagement of politics for the ever increasing social media generation and a collection of dimbo dumbos.

 

People say they want to see and hear their leaders. People say they want the facts. People say they want more engagement but cannot be bothered to put the effort in.

 

TV debates falsely described as some form of engagement but show zip.

 

IF people were genuinely that interested in what politicians do and that interested in having a say they would watch the debates, committees and parlimentary sessions which are recorded and broadcast each and every day. If they really wanted to be engaged as much as they claim to be, then people would actually input into public committe sessions, open surgeries and corresponding with their elected represntatives.

 

BUT, of course they dont. They just skim read the headlines and lap up the sensationalised TV fodder.

 

Personally, Im quite glad that May has chosen not to take part. In depth political interview and analysis is what we need not some glorified talent contest under twinkly lights.

 

An informed electorate making a decision on the facts is what we need not people voting for the ego and drama.

 

Realistically and rather sadly it wouldn't surprise me if she caves in and takes part, particuarly as she will be hounded by the media organisations with their gimmicks such as a man dressed in a chicken suit (Daily Moron) or the dark art tactics of shunned TV executives until they get their way and keep their advertising revenues up.

 

A spirited defence of your matriarch but sorry....no banana.

 

She's either up to it or she isn't.

 

---------- Post added 26-04-2017 at 23:10 ----------

 

No it doesn't as the Prime-minister is just a figurehead and not expected always to know everything. A prime minister has advisors, the cabinet and others, that are in charge of specific portfolios and put forward the policies.

 

The PM and prospective PMs need to be able to debate competently about all areas of their record, and their party's manifesto.

 

The fact they are the figureheads of it all makes it more important. Of course nobody can know every detail and nuance of every issue and policy but must have a good level of understanding.

 

I want to see May and Corbyn up there. I think it'll be damaging for them both and that is a good thing.

[ECCOnoob 1,050]

She's either up to it or she isn't.

 

Well given that she is currently polling at just under 50% of the entire electorate nearly double Corbyn's current figures - I think I know what my stance is.

 

 

I want to see May and Corbyn up there. I think it'll be damaging for them both and that is a good thing.

 

You can see them "up there" every week in PMQs You can see them "up there" during every major debate in the house. You can see their respective parties "up there" during every committee debate and chambers session.

 

This is the whole point. What is this obession with seeing it in a TV studio as if that gives it some massive importance over what happens day in day out in Parliament if people ACTUALLY BOTHERED TO TAKE INTEREST.

 

Simplistic gimmick to grab attention of the disinterested x-factor mindset.

 

---------- Post added 26-04-2017 at 23:43 ----------

 

No triple lock - No vote, In five years she can bring us to our knees before we have the chance to get her out.

 

Dont mind us future generation of pensioners who will probably end up with no state pension at all because all the money has run out.

 

Should have never been introduced in the first place. It was a ludicrous policy to score votes, just like Compo and his extra bank holiday spiel.

 

It still will go up with up with inflation and still has a double lock option. There should be absolutely no need to continue this triple lock nonsense. Money isn't infinite and people are living much longer. Its just not sustainable.

Edited April 26, 2017 by ECCOnoob

[Hairyloon 10]

The PM and prospective PMs need to be able to debate competently about all areas of their record, and their party's manifesto.

 

She's got by this far with no noticeable ability whatsoever.

 

I want to see May and Corbyn up there. I think it'll be damaging for them both and that is a good thing.

That uch I'll agree with.

 

---------- Post added 27-04-2017 at 00:15 ----------

 

You can see them "up there" every week in PMQs...

I take it you don't watch. If you do, then by what stretch do you call that "debate"?!

 

What is this obession with seeing it in a TV studio as if that gives it some massive importance over what happens day in day out in Parliament if people ACTUALLY BOTHERED TO TAKE INTEREST.

 

The difference could be the existence of an independent Chair who could oblige them to actually answer the questions.

[I1L2T3 10]

Well given that she is currently polling at just under 50% of the entire electorate nearly double Corbyn's current figures - I think I know what my stance is.

 

You can see them "up there" every week in PMQs You can see them "up there" during every major debate in the house. You can see their respective parties "up there" during every committee debate and chambers session.

 

This is the whole point. What is this obession with seeing it in a TV studio as if that gives it some massive importance over what happens day in day out in Parliament if people ACTUALLY BOTHERED TO TAKE INTEREST.

 

Simplistic gimmick to grab attention of the disinterested x-factor mindset.

 

---------- Post added 26-04-2017 at 23:43 ----------

 

 

Dont mind us future generation of pensioners who will probably end up with no state pension at all because all the money has run out.

 

Should have never been introduced in the first place. It was a ludicrous policy to score votes, just like Compo and his extra bank holiday spiel.

 

It still will go up with up with inflation and still has a double lock option. There should be absolutely no need to continue this triple lock nonsense. Money isn't infinite and people are living much longer. Its just not sustainable.

 

PMQs is not a substitute. It's heavily choreographed on both sides, a pantomime. You can see the limitations of Corbyn and May every week as they both try to desperately shoehorn in pre-rehearsed lines and crap jokes even when they lose control of the flow.

 

What interests me is we are told that May will go to war over Gibraltar, that she would start a nuclear war. I'd like to see how she deals with pressure, fast-moving events and real scrutiny.

 

I want to see Corbyn stress-tested like that as well.

 

Shouldn't be a problem for either of them if they're up to it and let's face it - Corbyn fans are worried he's not up to it. And Tories have exactly the same fear about May.

 

And, please no more elaborate sick notes from you on behalf of your beloved leader