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

[Penistone999 10]

Theresa May said she won't take part in a televised debate between the leaders of the parties.

Why is that?

 

The Tories are so far ahead in the polls, she dosnt need to get involved in mud slinging on live TV.

[Mister M 1,627]

Not sure what your problem is. I get the impression you have some kind of prejudice against Tories. Or perhaps, you know what the result of the General Election will be and have difficulty accepting a good honest lady will continue to be the Prime Minister with an increased majority.

 

She probably will win the election.

But given the leaders debates are now established - doesn't it strike you as high handed and arrogant to refuse to take part in them. Many people don't like public speaking, or opening their parties up for criticism, but if your a politician that's part of the job.

Like I say - I just hope people on here don't complain at some point in the future about Tory arrogance, they've had a taster of it.

Also, should a leader of a government that isn't Tory, similarly duck out of a leaders debate because they are 'frit', all they need to do is point to Mrs May.

 

---------- Post added 19-04-2017 at 18:26 ----------

 

The Tories are so far ahead in the polls, she dosnt need to get involved in mud slinging on live TV.

 

It isn't about mud slinging. Shouldn't a PM want to be held to account? Particularly if she thinks she's doing such a good job?

[apelike 10]

But given the leaders debates are now established -

 

I think you premise is wrong as there have not been that many and they only really started in 2010.

[Lockdoctor 10]

How many people watch those compared to how many would watch a one-off GE debate though?

I would switch off, if Nicola Sturgeon and the Welsh Lady were on a television debate.

[Hairyloon 10]

Point taken. The 'exchanges' give the electorate an opportunity to decide, which one is more suited to be Prime Minister.

Not really. It shows the unsuitability of the incumbent, and the ability of the opposition's script writers and their leader's ability to deliver them, but these are not really the best qualities required for running a country.

[Lockdoctor 10]

The Tories are so far ahead in the polls, she dosnt need to get involved in mud slinging on live TV.

That's a good point. I also doubt any future Prime Minister seeking re-election regardless of which party they lead, will agree to be involved in such debates. In 2010, Nick Clegg was judged to be the winner of the debates and that turned out to be his high point.

[Hairyloon 10]

It is tempting to suggest that she doesn't want TV debates because she is butt ugly, but that would be an improper comment.

 

I think it is no bad thing: the less we have to listen to her, the better.

[Lockdoctor 10]

There is nothing wrong with being prejudiced against a political party. What a party stands for may be completely against a persons principles and beliefs. In fact when you think about it it's an entirely rational viewpoint.

At the moment it's a unique situation and voters should really be looking to vote for the best person to lead the United Kingdom's Brexit negotiations. There is only one sensible choice. There are going to be hundreds of thousands of people, who have never voted Tory in their life voting Tory at this election, because they know it is in the country's best interest to do so.

[area 51 10]

It is tempting to suggest that she doesn't want TV debates because she is butt ugly, but that would be an improper comment.

 

I think it is no bad thing: the less we have to listen to her, the better.

 

I thought she was reasonably attractive,none of them are going to get on Love Island though are they.MP's dont need to be attractive.Back to the topic, i have never watched any of the previous debates so they didn't sway my vote.Personality is no guarantee that you are going to make a good prime minister.I am not convinced about the debates it just mimics the farce that elections are in the USA.Razamattaz is not the british way.

[taxman 12]

She's in front, therefore a debate could only harm her and give the other parties opportunities to score points over the Tories disastrous NHS reforms, their elitist plans for new grammar schools, rising inflation etc etc. If she just keeps her head down and allows her ministers to answer questions then she avoids the muck sticking.

[Anna B 1,417]

Is there public appetite for another round of mud-slinging on national TV so soon after the EU referendum?

 

Do we really want to see another round of talking heads debating 101 different policy issues? I certainly don't!

 

Yes, I think there is a need to clarify for the public what this election is all about.

 

Is it (as Tim Farron would hope) to get us out of Brexit with another referendum?

Is it to strengthen Theresa May's negotiating position? Or

Is it to promote Labour's equality and fairness for all in the face of stringent cuts, agenda?

 

I think people are going to be mightily confused and not know what they're supposed to be voting for. And I think they have every right to ask direct questions of the people who will be running the country. These people are supposed to be the servants of the people, not the other way round.

[I1L2T3 10]

At the moment it's a unique situation and voters should really be looking to vote for the best person to lead the United Kingdom's Brexit negotiations. There is only one sensible choice. There are going to be hundreds of thousands of people, who have never voted Tory in their life voting Tory at this election, because they know it is in the country's best interest to do so.

 

We don't know that yet. I'm keeping an open mind on this.

 

I suspected the pundits had it wrong before the referendum. Got the same uneasy feelings now. Going to be twists and turns aplenty