Election Debates

First topic message reminder :

A number of debates are taking place. Below is May v Corbyn. What is everyones' view on the debate? who do you think came out on top? Did the debate change your mind on who you will vote for or convince you who to vote for if you were undecided?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Musclular-mouse wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:That argument falls down when he wasn't going to bother himself then changed his mind at the last minute because of Diane Abbott.

But he turned up so the argument doesn't fall down. Where did you read that Abbot was going to be the labour representative?

He turned up in desperation and contributed nothing, it was said during the debate she was meant to be going which leads me to think you didn't watch.

It was said by Amber Rudd but I would take that with a pinch of salt as she was clearly trying to land a low blow by name dropping an unpopular labour figure.

Whether he turned up in desperation or not he still turned up whilst May never.... The reaction on website comments sections and the polls show it was a blow to May not turning up.

Who was due to turn up then, enlighten me?

That may be true of the sections that you read but the ones I read were full of praise for Rudd who outshone Corbyn by a distance.

But he went and May didn't. That's what people care about.

Well, people with free minds. I suppose people that believe everything that comes out of Tory HQ think otherwise.

It matters to people who want it to like his supporters or should I dismiss them as not having a free mind. You fit things to fit your own agenda.

But he turned up and she didn't. Why didn't she want to debate the other leaders?

It's an utterly pointless debate that's why but do cling to it as if it matters if you wish.

It isn't though, is it? Millions watched it. I'm not the one clinging to anything

Three million viewers wasn't it most of whom had an allegiance one way or another, you really are clutching at straws.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Who was due to turn up then, enlighten me?

That may be true of the sections that you read but the ones I read were full of praise for Rudd who outshone Corbyn by a distance.

I don't think anyone knows because I looked online and there is no mention of who was going to turn up. All we have is amber rudd making a snide comment that she would have enjoyed debating abbot which was clearly just her trying to name an unpopular labour figure.

I can post the links to the comments if you like. I looked at the metro online, the daily mail online, the bbc website and the bbc facebook page, itv facebook page and of course the guardian.

Go ahead I could post links to the Express, Sun, Facebook and Twitter as well.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Three million viewers wasn't it most of whom had an allegiance one way or another, you really are clutching at straws.

its not just about who watched it, clearly the message was on news websites that May failed to turn up whilst all the other leaders turned up to at least 1 debate.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Go ahead I could post links to the Express, Sun, Facebook and Twitter as well.

when you say facebook and twitter do you mean your friends facebook feed

On pro conservative pages, I suppose the comments you've seen are on neutral pages.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Go ahead I could post links to the Express, Sun, Facebook and Twitter as well.

https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews/videos/10154727231952217/?pnref=story

that is a link to a bbc video on their facebook and look at al the comments, they all attack May for not turning up. It was clearly a big thing for the public that she never turned up.

And yes the comments I have seen at eon neutral pages such as itv and bbc

Cabinet ministers have been appearing in places Con has no right to win like Bolsover...Crosby is no mug...Whatever the polls are telling us his private ones must be telling him they could wipe Labour out.

Trouble for Labour me thinks....

May had a lot to lose by turning up, correct political decision to not.

Brown had a disaster in 2010, cost him massively.

The IRA stuff is hilarious, the conservative government at the time were having secret talks with the IRA and there is an actual ex-IRA member as a sitting councillor for the conservative party.

Ent wrote:May had a lot to lose by turning up, correct political decision to not.

Brown had a disaster in 2010, cost him massively.

The IRA stuff is hilarious, the conservative government at the time were having secret talks with the IRA and there is an actual ex-IRA member as a sitting councillor for the conservative party.

Wrong.......The debates turned out well for Brown because the Liberals siphoned off the Tories and ended up with 23%.......The Tories had a big double digit lead going into the debates........Brown lost by 7....

Depends on how you define well, he is generally considered to have lost every debate and performed poorly. This with 9 million viewers and a 3 way debate for 90 minutes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election_debates,_2010

The day before the first TV debate labour polling 5 points behind (obviously lots of polls with a spread)

The day after the last debate polling 7-12 points behind (NB his bigot comments were before this).

Results narrowed towards the incumbent come election day.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Ent wrote:May had a lot to lose by turning up, correct political decision to not.

Brown had a disaster in 2010, cost him massively.

The IRA stuff is hilarious, the conservative government at the time were having secret talks with the IRA and there is an actual ex-IRA member as a sitting councillor for the conservative party.

Wrong.......The debates turned out well for Brown because the Liberals siphoned off the Tories and ended up with 23%.......The Tories had a big double digit lead going into the debates........Brown lost by 7....

Might be the leading party that has it all to lose then I guess.

Id be more in favour of a straight head to head debate between Labour and Tories. 7 leaders was probably too many voices and it ended up in 5 attacking 1.

Ent wrote:Depends on how you define well, he is generally considered to have lost every debate and performed poorly. This with 9 million viewers and a 3 way debate for 90 minutes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election_debates,_2010

The day before the first TV debate labour polling 5 points behind (obviously lots of polls with a spread)

The day after the last debate polling 7-12 points behind (NB his bigot comments were before this).

Results narrowed towards the incumbent come election day.

He was crap but Clegg did him a favor so the debates helped his position.

First debate had 8 million viewers the rest had half or less.

ICM. .Who won..

Lib 51
Con 20
Labour 19..

Labour were 13 behind going in and 9 coming out.

Wasn't a disaster.

The next debate is on now on bbc 1

Any views on the debate we just witnessed?

May did look better today than the last debate, but to be hinest she couldn't do any worse than the last debate.

Corbyn really does come across well in these debates/ I thought the questions about would he use the nuclear bomb would create a lot of criticism but looking at the bbc question time facebook page and the relevant comments section people are praising him for wanting to negotiate and reason before even thinking about using the nuclear bomb.

The Tories think the nuclear question killed him and its over..

Nuclear weapons are not a policy I'd vote on though... but I'm not a Lab/Tory floater..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:The Tories think the nuclear question killed him and its over..

Nuclear weapons are not a policy I'd vote on though... but I'm not a Lab/Tory floater..

I thought the same when watching it. Even though I agreed with what he was saying I thought that the population would disagree.

However how wrong was I. Looking at the itv comments section and bbc comments section he is getting nothing but praise for his position. I think the uk public are sick of war to be honest and are happy with someone who wants peace and to negotiate rather than war.

Who knows.....

Resonates with older voters I suspect.

Our enemies these days are more transient.

GSC wrote:Resonates with older voters I suspect.

Our enemies these days are more transient.

They aren't his voting group.....

They are the group that turns out better though so bridging the gap isn't the worst idea

GSC wrote:They are the group that turns out better though so bridging the gap isn't the worst idea

No S**t.....My guess is if defence is your driver you wouldn't vote Labour.

I came away thinking that HH must get through a lot of TV remotes...

PUSH THE RED BUTTON! PUSH IT

Tories are there for the taking on it though...

Hammering home the police cuts wouldve made life uncomfortable if it had landed

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:I came away thinking that HH must get through a lot of TV remotes...

PUSH THE RED BUTTON! PUSH IT

I honestly think this man is HH

https://www.facebook.com/bbcnews/videos/vb.228735667216/1810798965603620/?type=2&theater&notif_t=like&notif_id=1496442366774667

Thankfully Corbyn and the young lady at the end made him look silly

I'm seeing a lot of criticism for his stance especially among the older voters.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I'm seeing a lot of criticism for his stance especially among the older voters.

Where? on your pro-conservative page again...

I posted a link yesterday to a comments section showing corbyn support on a neutral page. I have just posted another bbc link showing the comments section and again corbyn is getting all the praise.

The nutters on the nuclear war question were embarrassing.

Just like all you left wing idealists are embarrassing on every issue.

I'm seeing little praise on the BBC, twitter or Facebook for his stance.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Just like all you left wing idealists are embarrassing on every issue.

I'm seeing little praise on the BBC, twitter or Facebook for his stance.

I literally just posted a link to the bbc facbook comments section that is 90% praising him. Not sure if you are wumming or you just can't read because the link is right there, a few comments up.

I've gone on that page and I'm seeing nothing but negativity, you don't know how Facebook comments sections work then.

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:The nutters on the nuclear war question were embarrassing.

Question Time audience logic: fury at Jeremy Corbyn refusing to murder millions of innocent people by nuking them, followed by fury he entered into dialogue with the IRA because they were murderers.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I've gone on that page and I'm seeing nothing but negativity, you don't know how Facebook comments sections work then.

I'm going to ignore you now because that comment has just proven you are a WUM who is not interested in real debate. The link is there for EVERYONE to see and it is so clear how much support corbyn is getting

You don't how Facebook works then, you see what your page suggests you will like and mine does likewise ergo we're not seeing the same comments.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Ent wrote:Depends on how you define well, he is generally considered to have lost every debate and performed poorly. This with 9 million viewers and a 3 way debate for 90 minutes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election_debates,_2010

The day before the first TV debate labour polling 5 points behind (obviously lots of polls with a spread)

The day after the last debate polling 7-12 points behind (NB his bigot comments were before this).

Results narrowed towards the incumbent come election day.

He was crap but Clegg did him a favor so the debates helped his position.

First debate had 8 million viewers the rest had half or less.

ICM. .Who won..

Lib 51
Con 20
Labour 19..

Labour were 13 behind going in and 9 coming out.

Wasn't a disaster.

Most of this is wrong, lib dems polling at 27 % before TV debates, similar day before the election - came in between 23-24 percent and actually lost seats. Their big bounce was in the middle of the debates but was not sustained.

Depends on which poll you looks at, yougov and ICM had labour within 5 or 6 % before tv debates and 7-12 behind after them.

TV viewers are wrong first debate 9 million, sky one 4 million, last one 8 million.

Brown needed a strong performance, did very badly, fell in polls post debate, lost election with huge swing in seats and vote share (largest since 70s I believe) - they were a disaster for him.

Why was the crowd intent on wanting us to nuke people?

Do people not understand how bloody mental it'd be to start nuking people? We'd be obliterated by Russia

That wasn't the question was it Olly, if you're renewing Trident would you use it in response to a Nuclear attack?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:That wasn't the question was it Olly, if you're renewing Trident would you use it in response to a Nuclear attack?

I'd spend more time and money on not being pr1cks so we're never the target of a bleeding nuclear attack tbh

Put the money towards deporting radical islamists and improving policing/intelligence to stop terrorism on our shores, rather than billions on a nuclear arsenal is my thoughts on the situ

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Why was the crowd intent on wanting us to nuke people?

Do people not understand how bloody mental it'd be to start nuking people? We'd be obliterated by Russia

It is a scary world that we live in. Any nuclear bomb in any part of the world would destroy the uk. The radiation and dangerous toxins would drift over to the uk and the mass exodus of people fleeing the blown up country who would come here to seek asylum would be in the tens of millions.

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:That wasn't the question was it Olly, if you're renewing Trident would you use it in response to a Nuclear attack?

I'd spend more time and money on not being pr1cks so we're never the target of a bleeding nuclear attack tbh

Put the money towards deporting radical islamists and improving policing/intelligence to stop terrorism on our shores, rather than billions on a nuclear arsenal is my thoughts on the situ

That again was not the question; Labour have committed to renewing Trident whether we agree or disagree is a different story. It's a nuclear deterrent designed to protect us but it's a waste of money if we take the stance of never using it in any situation.

You either scrap it entirely or take a stance of second attack, a bit of both is a nonsensical idea. Nobody is pro nuclear weapons and I've not seen any comments suggesting we going around Nuking countries for no reason.

Musclular-mouse wrote:

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:Why was the crowd intent on wanting us to nuke people?

Do people not understand how bloody mental it'd be to start nuking people? We'd be obliterated by Russia

It is a scary world that we live in. Any nuclear bomb in any part of the world would destroy the uk. The radiation and dangerous toxins would drift over to the uk and the mass exodus of people fleeing the blown up country who would come here to seek asylum would be in the tens of millions.

You what?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:That wasn't the question was it Olly, if you're renewing Trident would you use it in response to a Nuclear attack?

I'd spend more time and money on not being pr1cks so we're never the target of a bleeding nuclear attack tbh

Put the money towards deporting radical islamists and improving policing/intelligence to stop terrorism on our shores, rather than billions on a nuclear arsenal is my thoughts on the situ

That again was not the question; Labour have committed to renewing Trident whether we agree or disagree is a different story. It's a nuclear deterrent designed to protect us but it's a waste of money if we take the stance of never using it in any situation.

You either scrap it entirely or take a stance of second attack, a bit of both is a nonsensical idea. Nobody is pro nuclear weapons and I've not seen any comments suggesting we going around Nuking countries for no reason.

What he said, and also why we have it, have not been addressed at all by what you have said.

Firstly, those people were foaming at the d*ck asking about something they have a knowledge that we can kindly call zero.

Trident - why do we have it? Corbyn knows full well that it is part of an agreement, as well as keeping the 1% question in mind of those with their own trigger happy mentalists. He didn't actually say it would never be used in any situation, not sure he even really suggested it. He did however say that he wouldn't not be on first strike with it (thank god for that - not that we're gonna be a leader of that discussion anyway) and that he does not agree with using it. He has made it clear that he believes in disarmament, and it isn't a particularly savvy thing to do if you would hope to achieve that to then say "but I'll use it if you're gonna."

The ideas posited by that vocal minority in there was that he'd sit there and let North Korea blow us up, and he calmly and sensibly discussed how he would not threaten others and his beliefs on how to approach such aggression. The loud people didn't listen because they were looking to force an answer they were not going to get.

Frankly, the questions are ridiculous as no leader plans to or would ever get to use it. We'll be either so far down on the list that an ally would have got their first, or we'll be dead.

Whilst some people like to choose to forget this, the man is a politician. He knows limitations on the matter, but he also has his beliefs and principles. Actually, I would imagine everyone on both sides agrees with them, but the landscape is so pathetic in this country that people seem to think everything is a points scoring exercise and this is a bloody football match.

I've gotta add that I think the comments from the Conservatives towards Diane Abbott recently have been disgustingly disrespectful and another unnecessary negative of a campaign of misery and fear