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?

I'm not a fan of the debates in the first place, they work in America because it's 1 v 1 and you have a clear differentiation between the two parties but over here it's a struggle to understand why some of them are there.

Afro

She said that crime had dropped since 2010 which it has.

Obviously no 606v2 members in that audience then as Angus Robertson's remarks were very well received by people largely outwith Scotland.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Obviously no 606v2 members in that audience then as Angus Robertson's remarks were very well received by people largely outwith Scotland.

So were some of Paul Nuttall's remarks

CaledonianCraig wrote:Obviously no 606v2 members in that audience then as Angus Robertson's remarks were very well received by people largely outwith Scotland.

I don't live in Scotland but he didn't do the SNP cause any harm in my opinion....The Plaid girl always struggles to get in a debate..

Think they need a bigger hitter.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Obviously no 606v2 members in that audience then as Angus Robertson's remarks were very well received by people largely outwith Scotland.

So were some of Paul Nuttall's remarks

Night and day were the reactions. He got plenty of boos and jeers - even UKIP members are offering reaction just now admitting how poorly his views were received but they say it was because Cambridge (venue) was largely a remain area.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I'm not a fan of the debates in the first place, they work in America because it's 1 v 1 and you have a clear differentiation between the two parties but over here it's a struggle to understand why some of them are there.

Afro

She said that crime had dropped since 2010 which it has.

Okay fair enough but that is taking credit for Lib Dem policies adopted by the coalition.

It also glosses over the trend under the current government.

I didn't realise Alastair Campbell had an Afro.

Wow party taking credit...shocker..

This debate hasn't shifted a vote....Any good work Rudd has done is countered by May not turning up.

SNP have everything to lose..

Plaid and Ukip are wasting time.

Agree their Truss.

It's not made me any clearer on where I'll vote, but I can't see any good work from Amber Rudd. She had a chance to be up next when May leaves. Feel she has shot herself in the foot tonight.

And from the moment Corbyn ambushed her by a last minute announcement to take part, May was always going to get attacked for not doing so.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I didn't realise Alastair Campbell had an Afro.

Please don't associate me with that hypocritical moron.

I would bloody love to see Campbell rocking around with an afro

People see what they want to.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

SNP have everything to lose..

I have to disagree. I see SNP winning around three quarters of all seats in Scotland so can't see that it can be seen as a loss. Sure it may not be as many seats as they won last time around but consider this. The SNP's record in general elections since the Thatcher era is this:- 1979 (2 seats), 1983 (2 seats), 1987 (3 seats), 1992 (3 seats), 1997 (6 seats), 2001 (4 seats), 2005 (6 seats), 2010 (6 seats) and 2015 (56 seats).

You admitted yourself as biased. I am still on the fence and have no political allegiances. I'd consider myself as open minded as anyone watching the debate, so giving my impartial view of the it.

Audience didn't come across as impartial though. Seemed very left wing.

One thing I think we can all agree on. UKIP are finished and Paul Nuttall is lining up the nails for their coffin himself

Afro wrote:Agree their Truss.

It's not made me any clearer on where I'll vote, but I can't see any good work from Amber Rudd. She had a chance to be up next when May leaves. Feel she has shot herself in the foot tonight.

And from the moment Corbyn ambushed her by a last minute announcement to take part, May was always going to get attacked for not doing so.

Hammer is a passionate poster....I enjoy conversing with him.

Let him enjoy June 8....T*ts up after that.

Don't see this debate changing much which will suit the Tories fine.

Corbyns late move to turn up needed to see him land some big blows to justify top billing. Don't think he got close

We need more passion and people who care, whichever way they lean.

Cambridge the city was always going to be very left-wing. Like I said before, I'm baffled the Tories have placed it as a target to take.

I want to be baffled....Boring stinking normal you can keep..

I only live once.

I want to be excited, intrigued, entertained. Baffled isn't really a synonym of interesting

I'm reading comments on the bbc website and it seems corbyn is getting a lot of praise (I think most of his praise is because he turned up and at never though).

I think the debate was a mess as there were far too many people and no one could make their point without being talked over. It should be like it was in 2010 with the top 3 partys only.

Amber rudd saying that she was happy to sell weapons to saudia arabia who have an atrocious human rights record in their war in yemen was a big blow to her.

Amber Rudd came 5th on a viewers poll of the show. Corbyn came 1st

Corbyn probably could've turned up in his pants, flipped the moderator off and still won that poll then

GSC wrote:Corbyn probably could've turned up in his pants, flipped the moderator off and still won that poll then

Well that is no ones fault but Theresa May's for not turning up.

That was more referring to Corbyn was always going to win that poll regardless of anything he actually did

Looks like a mixed bag online and shows the frivolity of some that they place so much stock in a TV debate.

GSC wrote:That was more referring to Corbyn was always going to win that poll regardless of anything he actually did

He was always going to win the poll because Theresa May never turned up.

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

Only really makes sense if it was solely between him and May.

Thought Lucas, Angus, Farron and Rudd all had better outings. JC got a bit lost

CaledonianCraig wrote:Obviously no 606v2 members in that audience then as Angus Robertson's remarks were very well received by people largely outwith Scotland.

I thought he came across extremely well, got his points across well and did a good job to harness his desire to smack Nuttall.

Scottrf wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Crimey wrote:It helps that Jeremy Corbyn is an actual real person, not been pumped out by whatever machine they have to create most of the identical, robotic politicians.

He's still an IRA appeaser so is actually worse.

Actually, what evidence do you have of that?

You believe he was there for peace?

Why not? As much, if not more, evidence for that as for the fact he was secretly supportive of the IRA and their terrorism. At some point, you have to talk to the people you might hate if you want any sort of lasting peace.

Being there for peace = being an appeaser.

Just because people appear confused.

Nonsense. Think it's you that needs to consult the dictionary.

News breaking as well that Amber Rudd was fed to the lions despite having a bereavement in her family a few days ago. Makes May's cowardice even greater.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Being there for peace = being an appeaser.

Just because people appear confused.

Nonsense. Think it's you that needs to consult the dictionary.

Appease: "to bring to a state of peace"

You could have googled before showing yourself up.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I would say that is a fairly naive way of looking at it, I wasn't around 20/30 years ago but the impression left upon me by those who were has led to my strong dislike for Jeremy Corbyn, not sure you can underestimate the effect their peers have on people.

It is odd that a vote for the Conservatives is seen as selfish yet a young person voting entirely for themselves is not.

Seriously? Why don't you be your own man, look at actual evidence and form your own opinions? What's the quote? "Give me the boy until he's seven and I'll show you the man" - not many escape from that.

Scottrf wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Being there for peace = being an appeaser.

Just because people appear confused.

Nonsense. Think it's you that needs to consult the dictionary.

Appease: "to bring to a state of peace"

You could have googled before showing yourself up.

I think you were referring to another definition of "appease", as you well know. Never mind.

No, I was just informing people of definitions. Any definition would involve the purpose being peace anyway.

Glad you've checked the dictionary now though.

CaledonianCraig wrote:News breaking as well that Amber Rudd was fed to the lions despite having a bereavement in her family a few days ago. Makes May's cowardice even greater.

What utter nonsense and it's not exactly breaking news as it was known before.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I would say that is a fairly naive way of looking at it, I wasn't around 20/30 years ago but the impression left upon me by those who were has led to my strong dislike for Jeremy Corbyn, not sure you can underestimate the effect their peers have on people.

It is odd that a vote for the Conservatives is seen as selfish yet a young person voting entirely for themselves is not.

Seriously? Why don't you be your own man, look at actual evidence and form your own opinions? What's the quote? "Give me the boy until he's seven and I'll show you the man" - not many escape from that.

I have formed my own opinion and it's an opinion based on the effect the IRA had on my unionist family living in Ireland at the time.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:News breaking as well that Amber Rudd was fed to the lions despite having a bereavement in her family a few days ago. Makes May's cowardice even greater.

What utter nonsense and it's not exactly breaking news as it was known before.

Do you genuinely believe that she has a legitimate reason for not being there? She's scared that her performance would have a negative impact on voters (not confident in her policies?), so is able to sit on an easy lead.

Scottrf wrote:No, I was just informing people of definitions. Any definition would involve the purpose being peace anyway.

Glad you've checked the dictionary now though.

The very same people who used Neville Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler's Germany a few pages back are the same ones who are now unaware of it's actual meaning and it's my interpretation of why Corbyn pursued that course of action that I'm critical of.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:News breaking as well that Amber Rudd was fed to the lions despite having a bereavement in her family a few days ago. Makes May's cowardice even greater.

What utter nonsense and it's not exactly breaking news as it was known before.

Really?

All we have heard ad nauseum from May is the term 'Strong and Stable'. Well dodging election debates (an election she called early remember) hardly quantifies her as strong - quite the opposite actually. More like nervous and weak-willed. As for stable - well if you call umpteen u-turns on policies as stable then I am flabberghasted.

To be honest Craig I stopped paying too much attention to your opinion a long time ago, it's the same crap over and over again, you never actually say anything and never once try to back up your criticisms.

I don't see the point of a television debate involving seven party leaders five of whom are irrelevant to be honest but do find her reluctance to debate Jeremy Corbyn one on one a little bit galling as she's had the better of him in PMQ's for the past 9 months.

I do find the criticism of changing tact based on public reception a little bit odd, the Conservatives have pushed out some ideas that were ill received so have retracted them as I'd expect of any democratically nominated party.

The Tories negotiated with the IRA for years anyway.

Corbyn has denounced the bombings on TV and also did so in 1994, signing a parliamentary motion. There's loads to read on this if people want to.

I do enjoy the weak pacifist Corbyn who is also painted as the guy loves bombings.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I would say that is a fairly naive way of looking at it, I wasn't around 20/30 years ago but the impression left upon me by those who were has led to my strong dislike for Jeremy Corbyn, not sure you can underestimate the effect their peers have on people.

It is odd that a vote for the Conservatives is seen as selfish yet a young person voting entirely for themselves is not.

Seriously? Why don't you be your own man, look at actual evidence and form your own opinions? What's the quote? "Give me the boy until he's seven and I'll show you the man" - not many escape from that.

I have formed my own opinion and it's an opinion based on the effect the IRA had on my unionist family living in Ireland at the time.

It's an opinion based on second-hand information and the opinions and feelings of others. Understandable, but flawed. Out of interest, what are your feelings on past Unionist violence?

Didn't think a great deal of last night's debate, really. Think there's some gravity to the idea that these kind of debates only really favour the smaller parties, and certainly not the ruling one, whoever they are at the time.

As for the old Corbyn IRA guff, I'm really not sure why it's still such a big talking point. Corbyn should just swat away any further questions concerning it with the simple line that he is / was sympathetic to the grievances and / or cause, but not to the methods. A perfectly reasonable stance, and if it's good enough for Alec Reid, it's good enough for Corbyn.

It's the double standards which get me more than anything. Don't pretend you're morally outraged by Corbyn's affiliation with IRA members if you're going to turn a blind eye to Britain enabling Saudi Arabia to murder thousands of Yemenis with weapons we've sold them. I know which one I find more distasteful. If Corbyn's actions make him a threat to our national security, what the hell does arming Saudi Arabia, the chief hotbed of Islamic extremism, qualify as? Good business, presumably.

Back to the debates, anyway. Corbyn not at his best. Farron not bad, but needs to ease up on the habit of answering so many questions with anecdotal evidence designed to get a bit of a racket from the audience as a means of avoiding real issues. Lucas pretty good. Rudd not too great, but then again she was set up to be the fall guy to a certain degree. Nuttall was alright and at least answers questions directly and honestly, even if his politics are on the wane and he looks like Eddie from Bottom. Robertson...Well, I abhor much of the SNP and their crude tricks, but God help me, for whatever reason there's just something I like about him. He does have considerable skill as a performer and talks sense, albeit he too plays to the crowd for the odd cheap laugh a bit too much.

Almost forgot Leanne Wood. Says it all, really.

Nuttall does look like Eddie from Bottom. I like that.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I would say that is a fairly naive way of looking at it, I wasn't around 20/30 years ago but the impression left upon me by those who were has led to my strong dislike for Jeremy Corbyn, not sure you can underestimate the effect their peers have on people.

It is odd that a vote for the Conservatives is seen as selfish yet a young person voting entirely for themselves is not.

Seriously? Why don't you be your own man, look at actual evidence and form your own opinions? What's the quote? "Give me the boy until he's seven and I'll show you the man" - not many escape from that.

I have formed my own opinion and it's an opinion based on the effect the IRA had on my unionist family living in Ireland at the time.

And yet if it wasn't for people like Jeremy Corbyn who attempted to make peace, the suffering your family endured and that of others would be sustained to this day. There were few angels on any side of that conflict and it was only going to end if people with guts reached out to those holding the guns.

On the other hand Margaret Thatcher managed to make herself unpopular on all sides and it's not an exaggeration to argue she prolonged the conflict by a decade - someone who didn't know how to make peace and someone who didn't understand Ireland.

I respect your opinion and I respect your own personal experiences, but I really think the British public at large should educate themselves on the war here before they point fingers at anyone.

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?

theslosty wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I would say that is a fairly naive way of looking at it, I wasn't around 20/30 years ago but the impression left upon me by those who were has led to my strong dislike for Jeremy Corbyn, not sure you can underestimate the effect their peers have on people.

It is odd that a vote for the Conservatives is seen as selfish yet a young person voting entirely for themselves is not.

Seriously? Why don't you be your own man, look at actual evidence and form your own opinions? What's the quote? "Give me the boy until he's seven and I'll show you the man" - not many escape from that.

I have formed my own opinion and it's an opinion based on the effect the IRA had on my unionist family living in Ireland at the time.

And yet if it wasn't for people like Jeremy Corbyn who attempted to make peace, the suffering your family endured and that of others would be sustained to this day. There were few angels on any side of that conflict and it was only going to end if people with guts reached out to those holding the guns.

On the other hand Margaret Thatcher managed to make herself unpopular on all sides and it's not an exaggeration to argue she prolonged the conflict by a decade - someone who didn't know how to make peace and someone who didn't understand Ireland.

I respect your opinion and I respect your own personal experiences, but I really think the British public at large should educate themselves on the war here before they point fingers at anyone.

Well said

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.